Trump’s Letter: Allowing China to Increase Emission for Years to Come

Posted on September 9, 2017 by huangje

Evaluating the statements in Trump’s letter regarding the Paris Agreement on climate change, Trump refers to the United States pledge to reduce greenhouse as an unnecessary financial toll for the American people and states “meanwhile, the [Paris] agreement allows countries such as China to increase their emissions for years to come.”  Evaluating quote with Politifact’s Truth-O-Meter, I would have to say the accuracy of this statement is mostly false, meaning it “contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression” (Adair and Holan).

The statement is accurate in implying that China’s greenhouse gas emission will continue to increase under the pledge stated in the Paris Agreement on September 3, 2016. China’s commitment was to peak carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 at the latest, to lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60 to 65 percent below the 2005 levels also by 2030, and to increase its forest stock volume by 4.5 billion cubic metres compared to its 2005 levels (“China”). The statement fails to indicant the action that China has taken in terms of climate change. Though the levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) continue to increase China has become a leader in developing a low carbon power sector. Under the GHG Control and Environmental Protection 13th Five Year Plans, China will be “deepening policies to reduce coal consumption, develop low carbon technologies and policies, and pursue a path towards cleaner development” (Lin).

In the context of the letter, Trump first refers to what the Paris Agreement means to Americans, saying “reducing greenhouse gas emission by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025” would be a “significant burden for American’s workers and families” (Trump). He then implies with a statement about “other countries” expressing his opinion that China is not doing its fair share (Trump).  This however fails to mention the historical contribution of the United States to climate change. Looking at the cumulative carbon dioxide emission of countries from 1850 to 2011, the United States leads with 27% of the cumulative world emissions between the period, while China comes in third after the European Union with 11% of the cumulative world emissions (Ge et al). Though China’s contribution to global GHG emission have increased since 2011, the United States cannot forget its historical contribution.

This statement is also misleading because of its weak language like the phrase “increase their emissions for years to come” (Trump). This almost suggest that there are no plans in place to more away from carbon intensive energy sources such as coal. Also by not being specific about China’s pledge in the Paris Agreement, the language belittles the efforts of country with an extremely large population and the efforts it has and is currently taking to reduce its GHG emissions.

Since Trump’s statement, fails to mention the actions China has taken and the historical contribution the United States has in instigating climate change, there are critically key facts that have been left out in this statement. Because of the absence of this information, the statement is misleading in its assumption of China’s lack of contribution in the Paris Agreement. Therefore, the misleading information after evaluation falls under the evaluation of ‘mostly false’ according to Politifact’s Truth-O-Meter.

 

Works Cited

Adair, Bill, and Angie Drobnic Holan. “The Principles of PolitiFact, PunditFact and the Truth-O-Meter.” PolitiFact, www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/01/principles-politifact-punditfact-and-truth-o-meter/.

“China.” Climate Action Tracker, Climate Action Tracker Partners, climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html. Accessed May 2017.

Ge, Mengpin, et al. “6 Graphs Explain the World’s Top 10 Emitters.” World Resources Institute, wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters.

Lin, Alvin. “China’s New Plans Deepen Action on Climate Change.” NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org/experts/alvin-lin/chinas-new-plans-deepen-action-climate-change. Accessed Dec. 2016.

Trump, Donald. Letter. The White House.

 

Posted in Trump & Paris Agreement | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Letter: Allowing China to Increase Emission for Years to Come

The Future of Climate Science Under the Trump Administration

Posted on September 8, 2017 by Willow Huppert

During the 2016 Presidential campaign Donald Trump famously made inflammatory claims in which he questioned the indisputable science of climate change.  

Uninformed and vague statements on the subject of climate change left many to worry about what would happen to climate related initiatives.  What happens when the President does not believe in science?

In a letter from the President’s office, signed by Donald Trump, Trump claims, “[My] Administration will continue to support the rigorous scientific research that is critical to environmental protection” (Trump).  In order to assess this claim I’m going to be using Politifact’s Truth-O-Meter rating system.  Essentially I’m not trying to catch a slip of the tongue but rather analyze a written statement, signed by the President, which I believe to be of interest to the public.

Truth-O-Meter Rating: Pants on Fire, this statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim

The Skinny Budget

 In May 2017 the Trump Administration released its 2018 budget proposal to Congress for approval.  The so called “Skinny Budget” calls for drastic cuts in various science agencies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/grim-budget-day-us-science-analysis-and-reaction-trumps-pla

The graph above, produced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science depicts the percent change in funding to various science and research when compared to 2016 levels.  The obvious loser in the 2018 Budget is climate science.

What Exactly is Being Cut?

Mick Mulvaney, chief of the Office of Management and Budget argues that the past administration spent too much on climate science.  He intends to cut spending on the “crazy stuff” that was funded under the Obama administration.  Let’s take a look at what this “crazy stuff” is.

Arguably, one of the biggest losses in the 2018 budget proposal is NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System.  The NASA request would “kill off a research program necessary for establishing effective carbon monitoring in the United States and other countries, potentially jeopardizing the type of carbon accounting necessary to carry out the Paris climate agreement”.  Verification and monitoring are key components to any climate agreement.  The ten million dollar program also supports a broad area of research.  Some of the most notable projects that the CMS supports are the tracking carbon emissions of forests over time, satellite based assessment of farming emissions, and study of forest fires in Amazon basin.  Additionally NASA will suffer 59 million dollars in cuts in earth science research grants.  The budget also cuts five space based missions.  One of the space based missions being cut is the Radiation Budget Instrument that would measure the overall incoming and outgoing energy of the planet.  Clearly these cuts are not reflective of an administration that values “rigorous scientific research” (Trump).

The Department of Energy additionally faces impactful budget cuts.  The DOE’s Environmental and Biological Research budget will be cut by 43%, many of these cuts come from climate modeling programs.  NOAA also faces deep cuts to OAR, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.  The overall OAR budget is being cut by $31 million, much of this coming from competitive research grants and the tsunami warning program.

The budget completely eliminates ARPA-E, the Energy Department’s Advanced Research wing.  ARPA-E conducts research on advanced energy technologies in areas such as improving batteries.

Research is Important

I have not covered all of the scientific research programs being cut, there are many more.  Experts fear that these harsh cuts will result in stagnation and the loss of a generation of researchers.  Research is not a waste of money, it is necessary for innovation.  The importance of research is nicely summed up by Stephen Ezell, VP of ITIF, “The administration needs to recognize there is a big difference between wasteful spending and critical investments that ensure the U.S. economy, citizens, and businesses thrive”.  Although Trump’s budget cuts are intended to boost the economy, they will likely have the opposite effect.  

 

Sources:

Achenbach, Joel, and Lena H. Sun. “Trump budget seeks huge cuts to science and medical research, disease prevention.” The Washington Post. May 23, 2017. Accessed September 08, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/22/trump-budget-seeks-huge-cuts-to-disease-prevention-and-medical-research-departments/?utm_term=.b9c59d201ec9

“Projects.” ARPA-E | Changing What’s Possible. August 23, 2017. Accessed September 08, 2017. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/.

Science News Staff. “What’s in Trump’s 2018 budget request for science?” Science | AAAS. July 26, 2017. Accessed September 08, 2017. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/what-s-trump-s-2018-budget-request-science.

Posted in Risk and resilience, Trump & Paris Agreement | Comments Off on The Future of Climate Science Under the Trump Administration

Checking Donald Trump

Posted on September 8, 2017 by Teressa Healy

Truth-O-Meter:  Half-True: Partially accurate, but excludes important context.

In June of 2017, Donald Trump made the drastic decision to pull the United States out of the long negotiated Paris Agreement. While this may have not been a major surprise, as he was often vocal about his uncertainty behind the facts of climate change, it is nevertheless embarrassing and disheartening for many U.S. citizens. Under the Paris Agreement, the United States had pledged its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to reduce net GHG emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels. This was already a fairly lofty goal, and will now be impossible to complete.

In a letter to Professor Leary, Donald Trump accounts some of his many reasons for leaving this agreement. Due to Donald Trump’s tendency towards bending the truth, it is time to assess which segments of his letter are true and which are not. In his third paragraph Donald writes, “America has led the world in carbon dioxide reductions even as we have continued to expand our energy production”. After conducting research, it is clear that while this might be true, it isn’t as positive a statement as it appears.

America is long recognized as being one of the biggest carbon dioxide emitters, due to our excessively consumptive society. Recently surpassed by China, the United States is the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the world. The majority of these emissions come from burning fuel for energy, with other secondary causes such as agriculture, industry, and waste (Climate Action Tracker).

The United States has indeed begun leading the world in carbon dioxide reductions. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), our total emissions in 2015 were 2.5% lower than in 2014 and 12.2% lower than they were in 2007, their peak.This is due to the shift in our reliance for energy from coal to natural gas. Natural gas is extracted from the earth through a process known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking. While this has resulted in a decrease in our overall annual emissions, fracking is also highly disruptive to our environment and health. The natural gas is released by drilling and pumping water, sand, and chemicals deep, horizontally into bedrock. This in turn, creates fractures in the rock and allows for extraction (Natural Gas Extraction – Hydraulic Fracturing).

There are several critical issues that accompany fracking. First, fracking is known to contaminate water. The chemicals used in the fracking process are highly toxic and can leak into wells and poison common drinking water. Fracking also causes polluted air, through the release of greenhouse gases, and some organic compounds. In addition, it destroys land use and local habitats, along with being linked to low-magnitude earthquakes (Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas)

In addition, natural gas is far from clean energy. While it has fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal, it is imperative that we turn towards renewable energy if we wish to keep temperature increase between 2 degrees Celsius, as many scientists have insisted. While it releases about 50 to 60 percent fewer carbon dioxide than coal, natural gas has a higher chance of releasing methane, a greenhouse has much stronger than carbon dioxide. In order to reverse the damage thrust upon our environment, we must turn our reliance towards renewable energies, such as wind, solar, and hydro with no greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Action Tracker). 

Fracking explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti2niW2BRA

Interactive map of U.S. fracking locations and “fraccidents”: https://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states

 

Sources:

Milman, Oliver. “US Emissions Set to Miss 2025 Target in Paris Climate Change Deal, Research Finds.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 26 Sept. 2016, www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/26/us-climate-change-emissions-miss-2025-target-research. Accessed September 8th, 2016. 

Climate Action Tracker. “Foot off the Gas: Increased Reliance on Natural Gas in the Power Sector Risks an Emissions Lock-In.” CLIMATE ACTION TRACKER, 22 June 2017, climateactiontracker.org/news/282/Foot-off-the-gas-increased-reliance-on-natural-gas-in-the-power-sector-risks-an-emissions-lock-in.html. Accessed September 8th, 2016.

“Natural Gas Extraction – Hydraulic Fracturing.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 30 Dec. 2016, www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing. Accessed September 8th, 2016. 

“Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas.” Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas#.WbLqH9N940o. Accessed September 8th, 2016. 

Posted in Risk and resilience, Trump & Paris Agreement | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Checking Donald Trump

Fact Check: Does Renewable Energy Make Sense?

Posted on September 8, 2017 by Sarah House

In defense of his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, President Trump offers his assurance that the commitment would be unfair to the United States. Among his claims is that “the Obama Administration’s emissions commitments would

“Idaho Wind Farm.”
Jerry and Pat Donahoe, 28 Sept. 2013.

require us to shift energy production from affordable, reliable fuels to those that are more costly and less reliable.” In saying so, he suggests that in order to make the agreed 26% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, we would have to sacrifice the affordability and stability of our energy supply. Although methods of power production that are lower in emissions present new costs and challenges, they are not nearly so insurmountable as Trump might have us think.

What Exactly Are We Debating?

Trump provides little information on the “affordable, reliable” fuels we would shift from and why we would need to do so. However, it is clear that the United States relies heavily on fossil fuels to generate electricity. In 2016, natural gas fueled about 34% of the nation’s electricity production, and coal fueled another 30% (“Electricity Explained”). According to the US EPA, the burning of fossil fuels is the United States’ greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions (“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions”) ,so it would make sense to seek alternative energy supplies to meet the Paris Agreement emissions goals.

Trump also does not directly identify the alternative fuels whose economic viability he questions, but there are several options which produce no direct emissions. These include nuclear power as well as renewable options such as solar, wind and hydropower (“Solar”, “Wind”, “Hydropower”, “Nuclear”). Geothermal power, another renewable method, produces very low emissions (“Geothermal”). The Obama administration supported the use of both nuclear energy and renewables to reduce emissions, but this fact check focuses on renewables. Nuclear power already provides 20% of the nation’s electricity (“Electricity Explained”) and is economically competitive with other conventional methods (“The Economics of Nuclear”). However, fear of dangerous nuclear meltdowns and controversy over nuclear waste disposal make its future uncertain (Timmons et al.6) Furthermore, nuclear fuel, like fossil fuels, is a resource that must eventually run out. Renewables are a better long-term option.

Are Renewables More Expensive?

The United States would need to invest large amounts of money in to increase our sources of renewable energy, because we would need to construct new equipment and facilities. The Strata Institute cites a series of reports by researchers at Utah State University, who express doubt that the United States could successfully switch to renewable energy. They point out that the solar, wind and geothermal industries all rely on government subsidies to operate (Lofthouse et al). As noted in a 2014 report from Tufts University, capital investments for renewables are typically much higher than they are for fossil fuels. Startup costs for wind and solar are especially high. However, wind and solar power plants have very low operating costs, and the cost of these technologies is decreasing. Hydropower is already cost competitive with “traditional” fuels, and wind and geothermal are not far behind (Timmons et al 17-18,22). Once initial investments are made to develop the technology and build the infrastructure, production costs should not be an obstacle.

Are Renewables Less Reliable?

It is true that solar and wind energy are available on a more intermittent basis than fossil fuels. Whereas humans can control the flow of natural gas and coal into power plants, they cannot control when the wind blows or when the sun shines. Geothermal and hydropower can both provide a steady supply of power, but both are limited by geographic constraints (Lofthouse et al). A 2017 analysis has found that, renewable technologies have been successfully integrated into reliable power networks, by altering their use with that of other production methods. Developing methods include demand response programs, which encourage consumers to reduce their energy usage when demand is highest, and storage of electricity in batteries (“Demand Response”, Hibbard 53). Although studies have found that additional use of renewables in current systems would require more effective transmissions, they have also found that the transition would be “cost effective, for producers and consumers” and that operators have successfully made this transition in compliance with the Clean Power Plan (Hibbard 56). Renewables have already shown themselves to be a viable part of a stable energy supply.

The Bottom Line

Fossil fuels are currently the cheapest and easiest source of electricity because we are used to them and have designed our current system around them. If we are willing to invest in the initial costs, however, renewable technologies can become affordable, reliable sources of energy.

Works Cited

“Demand Response.” Energy.gov, U.S. Department of Energy, https://energy.gov/oe/activities/technology-development/grid-modernization-and-smart-grid/demand-response. Accessed  Sept. 2017.

“Electricity Explained: Electricity in the United States.” EIA. U.S. Department of Energy, 10 May 2017, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfmpage=electricity_in_the_united_states. Accessed 6 Sept. 2017.

“Geothermal Explained: Geothermal Energy and the Environment.”EIA. U.S. Department of Energy, 21 Nov. 2016, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfmpage=geothermal_environment. Accessed 6 Sept. 2017.

Hibbard, Paul, Susan Tierney, Katherine Franklin. “Electricity Markets, Reliability and the Evolving US Power System.” Advanced Energy Economy. Analysis Group, June 2017, https://info.aee.net/hubfs/PDF/AG-Markets-Reliability-Final-June-2017.pdf?t=1497985624115. Accessed 5 Sept. 2017.

“Hydropower Explained: Hydropower and the Environment.”EIA. U.S. Department of Energy, 12 July 2017, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=hydropower_environment. Accessed 6 Sept. 2017.

Lofthouse, Jordan, Randy T. Simmons, Ryan M. Yonk. Reliability of Renewable Energy. Institute of Political Economy: Utah State University, 2015, https://www.strata.org/reliability-of-renewable-energy/#1482196708924-dacfed4c-59ae. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

“Natural Gas Explained: Natural Gas and the Environment.” EIA. U.S. Department of Energy, 12 July 2017, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfmpage=natural_gas_environment. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

“Nuclear Explained: Nuclear Power and the Environment.” EIA. U.S. Department of Energy, 10 Jan. 2017. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfmpage=nuclear_environment. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

“Solar Explained: Solar Energy and the Environment.”EIA. U.S. Department of Energy, 14 Dec. 2016, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=solar_environment. Accessed 6 Sept. 2017.

“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Overview.” EPA, 14 Apr. 2017, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed 6 Sept. 2017. 

“The Economics of Nuclear Power.” World Nuclear Association, August 2017, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

Timmons, David, Jonathan M. Harris, and Brian Roach. The Economics of Renewable Energy. Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, 2014, http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/education_materials/modules/RenewableEnergyEcon.pdfAccessed 8 Sept. 2017.

“Wind Explained: Wind Energy and the Environment.”EIA. U.S. Department of Energy, 12 July 2017, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=wind_environment. Accessed 23 Nov. 2016.

Posted in Trump & Paris Agreement | Comments Off on Fact Check: Does Renewable Energy Make Sense?

Fact-Checking Trump

Posted on September 8, 2017 by Isabelle Tietbohl


U.S. President Donald Trump announces that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement and attempt to renegotiate.

Donald Trump has made some pretty bold claims in his short time serving as our president, but what are charismatic statements without truth- propaganda perhaps? The Politifact website shows, the majority of Trump’s statements are False, a recorded 33% of 445 fact checked statements (Politifact). The website ranks statements, assessing their validity in terms of : true statements, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false and “pants on fire.” In fact only 5% of those statements have proven to be completely truthful. This sets quite the precedent for his claims about international policies such as the Paris Agreement, which he has decided the United States will drop out of, because of his concerns that it is an unfair agreement.

In a letter signed by Donald Trump, he stated reasons for the withdraw from the Paris Agreement, stating that “…the agreement allows countries such as China to increase their emissions for years to come” (Trump). This statement by Trump is false, based on no legitimate information from the agreement, but perhaps by his lack of understanding of the text. The language used in the Paris Agreement, arguably makes it the most lenient agreement to come from these UNFCCC conferences. The only mandatory thing countries must do, is consistently report their progress in trying to lower emissions, but the actual reduction of emissions is not enforceable .

The Paris Agreement states, “Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy- wide absolute emission reduction targets.” This point within Article IV of the agreement is merely a suggestion. Developed countries have no legal obligation to lower their emissions, but this was not an exception given only to China. If the United States had ratified this, we could also go against our promises of lowering emissions as well- although this defeats the purpose of signing the agreement.

Perhaps Trump was twisting the words within the agreement, which explain that to lower the emissions countries must first reach their peak emissions . It seems this was put in the agreement mostly to maintain equity among developed and developing countries. Developing countries, that have had a fraction of the contribution of GHGs as developed countries, like the United States, should have the right to continue to develop to meet the basic needs of providing electricity to households. This is not an unfair attribute of the agreement, we in the United States are consuming in excess and must not hold developing countries to the same standards of emission reductions when historically they have contributed so little.

The nature of the agreement can be complicated to understand, filled with words like “should” and “shall” maybe we can empathize with Trumps denial of the facts of the agreement, that give no exclusive benefits to China. While trajectories of China’s emissions show their peak emissions to be reached no later than 2030, they have ratified the agreement and are making moves towards serious climate action. Their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) targets would give them a 70% reduction of emissions (Climate Action Tracker).

China’s goals for mitigating climate change also include moving away from coal, something Trump has not yet accepted as a step in the right direction for the United States, as he has promised to save the industry. While China attempts to lower emissions, and move away from dirty energy in coal, Trump promises to put miners back to work (Wolfgang).

Trumps decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, is not an informed one. He makes wild claims about perceived preferential treatment given to China through the agreement and ignores the progress that China is making towards climate action, and will continue to make with pledged goals and emission predictions. The time to act on climate change is now, and the United States should be setting an example in climate action, as we have the means to reduce our emissions and develop new technology to move to a greener world. While China hopes to propel forward, the United States will only fall behind if the Trump administration fails to act on this pressing issue.

 

Climate Action Tracker notes emissions over time within the United States, predictions do not include Trumps decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement, as it is not yet effective. The US ranking for climate action regardless, is “Inadequate.”

Climate Action Tracker notes emissions over time within China, and gives it a ranking level of Medium. Continue reading →

Posted in Risk and resilience, Trump & Paris Agreement | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Fact-Checking Trump

President Trump’s New Promise: The Erosion of America’s Global Leadership in Climate Change Action

Posted on September 8, 2017 by Marina Morton

“Continued participation in the Paris Agreement would be fundamentally unfair to American taxpayers. It would require the transfer of billions of their hard-earned dollars to other countries through the ‘Green Climate Fund.’”

Truth-O-Meter rating: mostly false (contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression).

This statement comes from a letter written by President Trump regarding the United States’ recent withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which the Obama Administration signed in April 2016. Finance alone can generate fear, frustration, and confusion, but finance and climate change can sound even scarier without context.

Climate finance refers to the way that the world manages and raises money to pay for climate change action which includes both mitigation (reducing the impacts) and adaptation (adjusting to new conditions). Since 1994, under the UNFCCC, developed countries have had an obligation to contribute financial resources to developing country parties to fund climate change action. The Paris Agreement  calls on developed country members to generate both mitigation and adaptation funds to assist developing country parties in the transition to sustainable development. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is one of the two managers of global climate finance under the UNFCCC with the task of investing in, as opposed to transferring (as suggested by President Trump), adaptation and mitigation projects in developing countries (“Climate Get the Big Picture”). The GCF has a Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme to help empower developing countries participating and receiving contributions from the fund. This program helps ensure the alignment of national priorities for climate change action with the planning processes for new investments.

Developed countries collectively agreed to the goal of contributing 100 billion USD per year by 2020. Currently, the GCF has raised 10.3 billion USD in pledges from 43 governments worldwide. As of August 18, 2017, the United States has contributed (announced, signed, and disbursed) 3 billion USD to the GCF.  While President Trump’s claim that the U.S. contributes billions of dollars to other countries under the Paris Agreement is true, his assertion that this contribution is “unfair to American taxpayers” is false. Even though the U.S. has the largest total pledged contribution in the GCF, the total pledged contribution amount per person is only 9.41 USD. In comparison to several other developed nations like Germany (12.13 USD per person) and France (16.03 USD per person), the U.S. has a relatively smaller commitment based on the enormous size of the U.S. economy compared to other developed and developing countries’ economies (“Resource Mobilization”).

Moreover, the U.S. is the world’s second largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter followed by the European Union (which counts the total emissions of 28 member states) (Ge, Mengpin, et al.). Based on the United States’ historically huge global carbon footprint and the country’s ability to finance climate change action relative to other countries, participation in the Paris Climate Agreement is fair despite American taxpayers’ unwillingness to accept this global responsibility (Ge, Mengpin, et al).

Figure A. Annual Emissions of Top 10 Emitters in 2011. This bar graph demonstrates that compared to other top emitters, the U.S. is one of the most economically developed countries in the world and has the second highest total GHG emissions. The population bar shows that the population of the U.S. is smaller than China and India, and closer in size to Brazil or Indonesia. Americans are responsible for more than their fair share of the total global GHG emissions, so the developing world expects them to lead in helping the most vulnerable nations to deal with and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Works Cited

“Climate Get the Big Picture.” UNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, bigpicture.unfccc.int. Accessed 29 Aug. 2017.

Ge, Mengpin, et al. “6 Graphs Explain the World’s Top 10 Emitters.” World Resources Institute, 25 Nov. 2014. www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world%E2%80%99s-top-10-emitters.

“Readiness Support.” Green Climate Fund, www.greenclimate.fund/gcf101/empowering-countries/readiness-support. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

“Resource Mobilization.” Green Climate Fund, 2017, www.greenclimate.fund/how-we-work/resource-mobilization.

The White House. U.S. Leadership and the Historic Paris Agreement to Combat Climate Change. Office of the Press Secretary, 2015. Web. 6 Sept. 2017.

Posted in Risk and resilience, Trump & Paris Agreement | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on President Trump’s New Promise: The Erosion of America’s Global Leadership in Climate Change Action

The Importance of Mitigation in a World Combating Climate Change

Posted on September 3, 2017 by bencosmp

During the 2nd half of the 20th century, scientists from different parts of the world began to conduct research on the effects that a developing world was having on the environment. They noticed that the temperature, the level of the oceans, and emissions of green house gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere were all on the rise. Although most people did not take climate change seriously, a large number of scientists and leaders tried to put the word out about how people should start taking initiatives to combat climate change before it was too late. In 1987, in an effort to protect the ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol was signed and went into force in 1989.

In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (CNFCCC) was formed due to the fact that the planet was only getting warmer. Later on in 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was ratified. The Kyoto Protocol’s main aim was to have the developed nations take the lead in limiting and reducing the GHGs emissions. This is because they were the wealthiest nations as well as the main producers of GHGs. The “target” countries were composed of the European Union and 36 as well as other industrialized countries including the United States and Canada. Altogether, these nations had to keep their emissions below the target over a period of time and they had to report their numbers as well. In 2015, the Paris Agreement was signed by 196 nations. In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement included all nations. The agreement stated that countries would work together to prevent the world temperature from reaching 2 degrees Celsius before the end of the 21st century, they will aid developing nations in preparing for a changing climate which would require new technologies, and through nationally determined contributions, each nation will report back what actions they have taken and what policies have been enforced to combat climate change. As of now, 160 nations have signed and ratified the Paris agreement with Timor-Leste being the last one having done so on August 16, 2017.

One of the main focuses of the Paris Agreement is to decrease the amount of green house gases emitted while at the same time reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air by increasing sinks. As stated in the Convention website, there is “a direct relation between global average temperatures and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” so human beings must reduce GHGs emissions. This process is known as mitigation. The convention expects that all the nations that have ratified the agreement to take actions to reduce the emissions of green house gases. The convention believes that if the leaders of nations implement policies and programs that revolve around the idea of planting more trees, using renewable energy, changing your diet, making agriculture better, etc., it can significantly impact the planet in positive ways.

I believe that it is extremely important that nations take the steps necessary to reduce green house gases emissions because otherwise the temperature of the planet will be rising at a faster rate than predicted. When temperatures rise, the ice melts, ocean level rises, lands become uninhabitable due to flooding, coral reefs disappear, and if no action is taken against global warming, the globe itself may become uninhabitable within a few centuries.

“The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.” The Montreal         Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer | Ozone Secretariat,      ozone.unep.org/en/treaties-and-decisions/montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-       ozone-layer. Accessed 29 Aug. 2017.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Paris Agreement – Status of   Ratification.” Paris Agreement – Status of Ratification, 10 Aug. 2017,   unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php. Accessed 29 Aug. 2017.

“UNFCCC eHandbook.” UNFCCC eHandbook – Startpage, bigpicture.unfccc.int/.           Accessed 30 Aug. 2017.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Importance of Mitigation in a World Combating Climate Change

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Technology Transfer

Posted on August 30, 2017 by huangje

One important aspect to the Convention is technology transfer, which focuses on all parties working together to improve the development and transfer of GHG emission reducing technologies. This requires developed countries to step up with assisting in improving climate technology in developing countries.

Along with its efforts to improve climate technologies, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has established a web-platform, TT: CLEAR, to publicly share all information surround climate technology including information on the Technology Mechanism.

The Technology Mechanism was created in 2010 by the Conference of the Parties. It is comprised of two bodies: the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). TEC is the policy body which is made up of twenty technology experts from both developing and developed countries. They analyze policy issues and make recommendations to improve climate technology endeavors. Another role TEC has is to facilitate collaboration among these stakeholders to improve climate technology. Currently they are focused on six areas: adaptation technologies, emerging and cross-cutting issues, mitigation technologies, climate technology financing, innovation and technology research development and demonstration, and technology needs assessments. TEC works with stakeholders and partners such as NGOs, countries, intergovernmental and UN organizations, and experts and academia.

The second body, the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN), supports countries with the implementation of climate technologies,projects and programs providing assistance with technology solutions, advice on policy, and legal and regulatory frameworks. Developing countries can submit technical assistance requests which is one of CTCN priorities. The sharing of comprehensive, up-to-date, and easily accessible information on climate technologies is offered through CTCN’s TT: CLEAR. Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes ‘climate technologies’ as “any piece of equipment, technique, practical knowledge or skills for performing a particular activity that can be used to face climate change”, the CTCN does encompass a wide range of solutions (Climate Technology Centre and Network). Additionally, capacity building is another network service CTCN provides. Capacity building offers tutorials and workshops to peers and developing country stakeholders strengthening the collect knowledge of the network. CTCN is run through the UN Environment Programme and the UN Industrial Development Organization along with the support from 11 partner institutions. The centre exists on a network of multiple levels including the international, national, regional, and sectoral technology centres.

For an example of the CTCN in action in Senegal this video explains how they took steps to better utilize waste and byproducts to improve productivity.

Striving to quicken the shift to environmentally beneficial, low carbon technologies and climate resilient development, the CTCN carries out important work in addressing barriers that hinder development of climate technologies. The actions taken by the CTCN work to reduce the amount of GHG emissions emitted globally by targeting developing countries who all holding numerous opportunities for environmentally beneficial development.

Having systems like Technology Mechanism in place that check and improve existing system is important. Without these systems, inefficiencies would cause climate change conditions to be exacerbated. These bodies in the Technology Mechanism operate collaboratively to improve systems globally. Holding 11,501 information resources and supporting 350 network members, the TEC and CTCN services are extremely importance to lowering GHG emission and improving climate resilient development.

 

 

Work Cited:

“Climate Get the Big Picture.” UNFCCC EHandbook , United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, bigpicture.unfccc.int/.

“Technology Mechanism.” TT:CLEAR, UNFCCC, unfccc.int/ttclear/support/technology-mechanism.html.

“Climate Technology Centre and Network.” Climate Technology Centre and Network, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, www.ctc-n.org/.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Technology Transfer

The Soul of the Rhino

Posted on August 30, 2017 by huangje

In the novel, The Soul of the Rhino by Hermanta Mishra, the author portrays dichotomic intersection that shape Nepal using the subject of the greater one-horned Asian rhinoceros (Indian rhinoceros) at its focal point. The rhino was described as a pest and a sacred being and through his experience with protecting this species the author finds himself at the intersection of many areas (Mishra 202). Mishra tells of his experience with saving the endangered rhino population by relocating rhinos from the Royal Chitwan National Park to the Royal Bardia National Park saying…

“[I] felt like a rhino myself, an ungainly creature put together from different parts. Part Eastern. Part Western. Part city slicker and part jungle dweller. Part scientist and part drunken singer of bawdy songs. Part hunting guide and part preservationist” (202).

Through the challenge of saving this species from extinction, he finds a balance between these dichotomies and a way to use the differences in a beneficial manner.

Nepal becomes an area where Western culture meets Eastern culture. Like with our own travel to Nepal, it is important for those entering a new space to understand the different preexisting system in place and the relationships between them. In this novel, first there need to be an understanding of the local people’s concerns and to create positive change. The aim was for the local community to see the bond between human wellbeing and animal, specifically rhino, wellbeing. So instead of community members posing the question if rhinos were more important than the people of Nepal, individuals like John Coapman, a Texan, worked to establish a codependent relationship between humans and wildlife (81-82). Coapman saw an opportunity to switch guns out for cameras and it work.  Though having flaws, adventure tourism in Chitwan improved international conditions, brought more economic wealth to the area through the new business, and begun to change the perception of rhinos as pests.

Nepal blends modern and traditional cultures which Mishra describes as the “drive toward modern life versus the effort to preserve traditional culture” (149). This can be seen all throughout the country from the 16th century medieval brick buildings with electrical and telephone wires, to the high-quality climbing gear next to Tibetan refugee woven rugs, and the fancy cars in the narrow streets of Kathmandu (149). The practice of relocation rhino also blends modern sciences such as radio telemetry and high-powered dart gun holding sudation drugs with traditional practices such as shamanism rituals towards the Goddess of the Forest, Ban Devi.  Even the King Birendra was affected by the clashing and blending of cultures. Receiving an international education and knowing the fragile state of the rhino population, the king struggles with the pressure to perform a Nepalese traditional involving killing a rhino, Tarpan. When Mishra is charged to be the hunting guide for the Tarpan, he grapples with the ethics of this religious ceremonial obligation and the moral ethic of killing even one rhino. This situation shows how conservation is not as straight forwards as it might seem and how other aspects are important in creating a sustainable environment such as building local and international community support. In the end, Mishra realizes the positive effects the public ceremonial death of a rhino had to ultimately increasing protected lands, jobs, foreign exchange, sustainable land management, and bolstering not only the reputation of the animal but also expanding the number of rhinos located in Nepal.

 

Work Cited:

Mishra, Hemanta. The Soul of the Rhino. Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.

(Photos) https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/greater-one-horned-rhino

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Soul of the Rhino

UNFCCC- Deforestation

Posted on August 30, 2017 by Ian Ridgway

As the relationship between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change becomes increasingly apparent studies examining ways to mitigate these changes are also raising.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) provides a list on their website of area in which the organization is focused.  The general goal of said mitigation efforts is to reduce the amount of GHG pollutants while also improving areas that act as sinks for these gases. The UNFCCC is concerned with enhancing policies regarding emissions of GHG in “developed country Parties.”  This has led to an agreement by developed countries on goals for GHG emissions by the year 2020.

An important first step to effect mitigation is understanding where greenhouse gases are being produced.  As the UNFCCC website explains, one source of greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide, is deforestation. The UNFCCC is taking action towards mitigating global deforestation as annually 13 million hectares forest are harvested. This deforestation produces 5.8 GtCO2/yr.

The main driver behind deforestation is the pursuit to convert more land into agricultural fields. This demand for land is one that will only increase as global populations are rise at record rates. Thus, the time to address the harmful practices of deforestation is now.  The demand for wood and products produced from forests also serve as a catalyst for deforestation.

The UNFCCC currently has multiple approaches to mitigation deforestation.  Developing countries Parties are currently meeting and discussing what the proper actions to be taken against deforestation are.  At the forty-second meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), it was agreed upon to consider using practices such as joint mitigation when addressing deforestation.  Another highlighted practice was the focus on sustainable forest management.  The SBSTA then agreed to draft policies for the implementation of joint mitigation and forest management.  These polices will be “considered and adopted” in their next meeting.

Sustainable forest management helps combat climate change.  The presence of a healthy forest acts as a sink for carbon dioxide as the plant life consumes CO2 during photosynthesis.  There are many methods used to sustainable maintain a forest.  These practices include planting trees in areas which have been deforested, monitoring consumption of goods to prevent overuse, and removal of any invasive species.  If a forest is being managed sustainably then the carbon footprint of the area will decrease as that also means that there is a lack of deforestation in the area.

The UNFCCC’s focus on the impact of deforestation is environmentally important for several reasons. First, as explained above, these practices are a large source for CO2 in the atmosphere, which means deforestation is a direct cause to the acceleration global climate change.  Many studies have shown that deforestation has lasting negative effects on environments and ecosystems.  These changing environments are particularly bad for animals such as large carnivores (Zemanova, et al. 2017).  Humans, however, are not immune to these harmful impacts as deforestation increases soil erosion and flooding (N. Faiza, et al. 2017).  Ask the city of Houston what impact flooding can have on a populated city.  If global deforestation can be reduced, then so will the amount of GHG in the atmosphere.  Stopping deforestation will improve areas that act as sinks for greenhouse gas emissions as well as reduce the amount of pollutants from one of the biggest global sources.

Forests take decades to develop, trees years to grow, yet only hours to flatten.

The following video addresses the issue of deforestation in Nepal.  Relaxed polices combined with an increased demand for wood has led to an extreme rise in the rate of deforestation.  This video is not mine and was published to YouTube.

 

This video shows the impact that floods can have inn Southeast Asia.  At the end of August, starting August 29th, flooding from monsoons has left over 1,200 people dead and over 1 million displaced.  This flooding impacted people throughout India, Nepal, and Bangladesh.  This video is not mine and was published to the Independent.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on UNFCCC- Deforestation