[TheClimate.Vote] January 14, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/January 14, 2019/

[Solar power: cold is OK, light is what counts]
*Solar panels high on snowy mountains yield peak power*
Arrays sited in thin air could help to fill winter solar-power gap.
- - - RENEWABLE ENERGY 07 JANUARY 2019
Solar-power systems have long been hampered by a seasonal problem: the 
panels produce more energy in summer than in winter, at least in the 
mid-latitudes, where much of the planet's population lives. To meet the 
goal of drawing 100% of energy from renewable sources, planners need to 
find ways to increase winter output.
Seeking to do so, a team led by Annelen Kahl at the Swiss Federal 
Institute of Technology in Lausanne analysed how the location and 
orientation of solar panels in Switzerland affected the panels' energy 
production. The group found that output rose when the panels were sited 
at high elevations, where fewer clouds block the Sun, and in snowy areas 
where the snow reflects radiation onto the panels. Installing the panels 
vertically -- which allows snow to slide off -- enhanced their output 
even more.
In the depths of winter, panels placed at an optimal orientation on 
snow-covered mountains produced up to 150% more power than panels in 
urban locations, the authors found.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00030-2


[thought so]
*Air travel is surging. That's a huge problem for the climate.*
US airlines have an abysmal carbon footprint.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/18177118/airlines-climate-change-emissions-travel
- - -
[Fast Company]
*Focusing on how individuals can stop climate change is very convenient 
for corporations*
Sure, it's morally good to reduce your footprint-but don't let that 
deflect attention from who is really to blame.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90290795/focusing-on-how-individuals-can-stop-climate-change-is-very-convenient-for-corporations


[long commentary from KevinAnderson.info]
*Capricious foes, Big Sister & high-carbon plutocrats: irreverent 
musings from Katowice's COP24*
…the time for action is not at COP25, but now and during the intervening 
months…
Four weeks on and the allure of Christmas and New Year festivities fade 
into the grey light of a Manchester January - a fine backdrop for 
revisiting December's COP24

*1) An Orwellian tale: myths & hidden enemies *
A quick glance at COP24 suggests three steps forward and two steps back. 
But whilst to the naive optimist this may sound like progress, in 
reality it's yet another retrograde bound towards a climate abyss. As 
government negotiators play poker with the beauty of three billion years 
of evolution, climate change emissions march on. This year with a stride 
2.7% longer than last year - which itself was 1.6% longer than the year 
before. Whilst the reality is that every COP marks another step 
backwards, the hype of these extravaganzas gives the impression that 
we're forging a pathway towards a decarbonised future.

For me the fantasy-land of COP24 was epitomised at the UK's ever-busy 
Green is Great stand. Here, the nation that kick-started the fossil-fuel 
era, regaled passers-by with a heart-warming tale of rapidly falling 
emissions and a growing green economy. This cheerful narrative chimed 
with those desperate to believe these annual junkets are forging a 
decarbonised promise-land. Despite my cynicism, I was nevertheless 
surprised just how pervasive the UK's mirage had become.

Adjacent to Brexit Blighty's pavilion was the WWF's Panda Hub. Here I 
attended a session at which two British speakers offered advice to the 
New Zealand government on their forthcoming energy law. The mantra of 
the UK being at the vanguard of climate action was reiterated by a 
'great & good' of the NGO world and by the Director of Policy at a 
prestigious climate change institute. A similar fable from a couple of 
Government stooges would not have been a surprise. But surely the NGO 
and academic communities should demonstrate greater integrity and a more 
discerning appraisal of government assertions?

If you ignore rising emissions from aviation and shipping along with 
those related to the UK's imports and exports, a chirpy yarn can be 
told. But then why not omit cars, cement production and other so-called 
"hard to decarbonise" sectors? In reality, since 1990 carbon dioxide 
emissions associated with operating UK plc. have, in any meaningful 
sense, remained stubbornly static.[1] But let's not just pick on the UK. 
The same can be said of many self-avowed climate-progressive nations, 
Denmark, France and Sweden amongst them. And then there's evergreen 
Norway with emissions up 50% since 1990.

Sadly the subterfuge of these supposed progressives was conveniently 
hidden behind the new axis of climate-evil emerging in Katowice[2]: 
Trump's USA; MBS's Saudi; Putin's Russia; and the Emir's Kuwait - with 
Scott Morrison, Australia's prime minister, quietly sniggering from the 
side-lines. But surely no one really expected more from this quintet of 
regressives. It's the self-proclaimed paragons of virtue where the real 
intransigence (or absence of imagination) truly resides. When it comes 
to commitments made in Paris, the list of climate villains extends far 
and wide - with few if any world leaders escaping the net.

*2) Let them eat cake: a legacy of failure & escalating inequity *
How is it that behind the glad-handing of policy makers and the 
mutterings of progress by many academics, NGOs and journalists, we 
continue to so fundamentally fail?

On mitigation, endless presentations infused with 'negative emissions', 
hints of geo-engineering and offsetting salved the conscience of 
Katowice's high-carbon delegates. But when it came to addressing issues 
of international equity and climate change, no such soothing balm was 
available. I left my brief foray into the murky realm of equity with the 
uneasy conclusion that, just as we have wilfully deluded ourselves over 
mitigation, so we are doing when it comes to issues of fairness and funding.

COP after COP has seen the principal of 'common but differentiated 
responsibility' (CBDR) weakened. Put simply, CBDR requires wealthier 
nations (i.e. greater financial capacity) with high-emissions per capita 
(i.e. greater relative historical responsibility for emissions) to "take 
the lead in combating climate change". This was a central tenet of the 
1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and 
specifically committed such wealthy nations to peak their emissions 
before 2000. Virtually all failed to do so.

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol established binding but weak emission 
targets for these nations, with the intention of tightening them in a 
subsequent 'commitment period'. The all-important second 'commitment 
period' was never ratified - partly because a new 'regime' for 
international mitigation was anticipated.

In 2015, and to wide acclaim, the new regime emerged in the guise of the 
Paris Agreement. This saw the dismantling of any legally binding 
framework for wealthier high CO2/capita countries to demonstrate 
leadership. Instead nations submitted voluntary bottom-up mitigation 
plans based on what they determined was their appropriate national 
responsibility for holding to a global rise of between 1.5 and 2C. True 
to form, world leaders dispensed with any pretence of integrity, 
choosing instead to continue playing poker with physics & nature. Even 
under the most optimistic interpretation of the collective nonsense 
offered, the aggregate of world leaders' proposals aligned more with 
3.5C of warming than the 1.5 to 2C that they had committed to.

So, has the shame of repeated failure on mitigation initiated greater 
international funding for those poorer nations vulnerable to climate 
impacts and in the early phases of establishing their energy systems?

In Copenhagen 'developing' nations agreed to produce mitigation plans, 
with the understanding that their "means of implementation" would 
attract financial support from the wealthier hi-emitters. Move on to 
Paris, and the wealthy nations flex their financial muscles and begin to 
backtrack. Rather than deliver a new and anticipated post-2020 finance 
package, they chose to extend what was supposed to be their $100billion 
per year 'floor' (i.e. starting value) out to 2025. To put that in 
perspective, $100billion equates to one twenty-eighth of the UK's annual 
GDP - and even this paltry sum is proving difficult to collect from rich 
nations.

Surely COP24 couldn't belittle poor nations further? Yet the Katowice 
text stoops to new lows. Funding initially intended to mobilise action 
on mitigation and adaptation is transposed into various financial 
instruments, with the very real prospect of economically burdening 
poorer countries with still more debt.

*3) Big Sister & 'badge-less' delegates*
Finally, I want to touch on something far outside my experience and 
probably one of the most damning aspects of the COPs that I've become 
aware of.

As a professor in the gentle world of academia, I can speak wherever I'm 
able to get a forum. I can explain my analysis in direct language that 
accurately reflects my judgements - free from any fear of being actively 
shut down. Certainly, there are academics (usually senior) who favour 
backstabbing over face to face engagement, but typically their comments 
are later relayed via their own (and more honest) Post-Doc & PhD 
colleagues. And if I find myself on a stage with climate Glitterati & 
accidently step on a few hi-emitting toes - the worse I face is an 
insincere smile and being crossed off their Christmas card list. But 
such bruising of egos and prestige is relatively harmless. Elsewhere 
however this is not the case - for both early career academics and civil 
society.

At COP24 I spoke at some length with both these groups. Not uncommonly 
early career researchers feared speaking out "as it would affect their 
chances of funding". This specific example arose during a national side 
event on the miraculous low-carbon merits of coal and extractive 
industries. However, similar language is frequently used to describe how 
hierarchical structures in universities stifle open debate amongst 
researchers working on short-term contracts. Given senior academics have 
collectively and demonstrably failed to catalyse a meaningful mitigation 
agenda, fresh perspectives are sorely needed. Consequently, the new 
generation of academics and researchers should be encouraged to speak 
out, rather than be silenced and co-opted.

Turning to wider civil society, I hadn't realised just how tightly 
constrained their activities were, or that they are required to operate 
within clear rules. At first this appears not too unreasonable - but 
probe a bit further and the friendly face of the UNFCCC morphs into an 
Orwellian dictator. Whilst country and industry representatives can 
extol the unrivalled virtues of their policies and commercial ventures, 
- civil society is forced to resort to platitudes and oblique 
references. Directly questioning a rich oil-based regime's deceptions or 
even openly referring to Poland's addiction to "dirty "coal is outlawed. 
By contrast eulogising on the wonders of clean coal is welcomed, as is 
praising a government's mitigation proposals - even if they are more in 
line with 4C than the Paris commitments.

All this is itself disturbing. Whilst the negotiators haggle over the 
colour of the Titanic's deckchairs and how to minimise assistance for 
poorer nations, the UNFCCC's overlord ensures a manicured flow of 
platitudes. The clever trick here is to facilitate the occasional and 
highly choreographed protest. To those outside the COP bubble, such 
events support the impression of a healthy balanced debate. National 
negotiators with their parochial interests and hydrocarbon firms with 
their slick PR, all being held to account by civil society organisations 
maintaining a bigger-picture & long-term perspective. But that is far 
from the truth.

For civil-society groups getting an "observer" status badge is an 
essential passport to the COPs. These are issued by the UNFCCC and can 
easily be revoked. Without 'badges', or worse still, by forcibly being 
"de-badged" (as it's referred to), civil society delegates have very 
limited opportunity to hold nations and companies to account or to put 
counter positions to the press. Such tight policing has a real impact in 
both diluting protests and, perhaps more disturbingly, enabling nations 
and companies to go relatively unchallenged. The latter would be less of 
a concern, if the eminent heads of NGOs were standing up to be counted. 
But over the years the relationship between the heads of many NGOs and 
senior company and government representatives has become all too cosy. 
Witness the UK Government's decoupling mantra forthcoming from the lips 
of one of the UK's highest profile NGO figures.

So what level of 'control' is typically exerted at COPs? To avoid 
compromising badges for those wishing to attend future UNFCCC events, I 
can't provide detail here, but the range is wide: highlighting the 
negative aspects of a country or company's proposals or activities; 
displaying temporary (unauthorised) signs; asking too challenging 
questions in side events; circulating 'negative' photographs or images; 
and countering official accounts. In brief, criticising a specific 
country, company or individual is not allowed in material circulated 
within the conference venue. Previously, some civil-society delegates 
have had to delete tweets and issue a UNFCCC dictated apology - or lose 
their badges. This year, and following a climate-related protest in 
Belgium, those involved were subsequently stopped from entering Poland 
and the Katowice COP; so much for the EU's freedom of speech and movement.

If the COP demonstrated significant headway towards delivering on the 
Paris agreement, perhaps there would be some argument for giving the 
process leeway to proceed unhindered by anything that may delay 
progress. But no amount of massaging by the policy-makers and the 
UNFCCC's elite can counter the brutal and damning judgement of the 
numbers. Twenty-four COPs on, annual carbon dioxide emissions are over 
60% higher now than in 1990, and set to rise further by almost 3% in 2018.

*4) Conclusion*
It's a month now since I returned from the surreal world of COP24. I've 
had time to flush out any residual and unsubstantiated optimism and 
remind myself that climate change is still a peripheral issue within the 
policy realm. The UK is an interesting litmus of just how fragmented 
government thinking is. A huge effort went into the UK's COP presence - 
yet back at home our Minister for Clean Growth celebrates the new Clair 
Ridge oil platform and its additional 50 thousand tonnes of CO2 per day 
(a quarter of a billion tonnes over its lifetime). Simultaneously, the 
government remains committed to a new shale gas revolution whilst plans 
are afoot for expanding Heathrow airport and the road network.

COP can be likened to an ocean gyre with the 'axis of evil', 
Machiavellian subterfuge and naive optimism circulating with other 
climate flotsam and with nothing tangible escaping from it. Twenty-four 
COPs on, questions must surely be asked as to whether continuing with 
these high-carbon jamborees serves a worthwhile purpose or not? Thus far 
the incremental gains delivered by the yearly COPs are completely 
dwarfed by the annual build-up of atmospheric carbon emissions. In some 
respects the Paris Agreement hinted at a potential step change - but 
this moment of hope has quickly given way to Byzantine technocracy - the 
rulebook, stocktaking, financial scams, etc.; not yet a hint of 
mitigation or ethical conscience.

But is this jettisoning of COPs too simple? Perhaps international 
negotiations could run alongside strong bilateral agreements (e.g. China 
and the EU)? Stringent emission standards imposed on all imports and 
exports to these regions could potentially lead to a much more ambitious 
international agenda. The US provides an interesting and long-running 
model for this approach. For just over half a century, California has 
established increasingly tighter vehicle emission standards, each time 
quickly adopted at the federal level by the Environmental Protection 
Agency. Clearly internationalising such a model would have implications 
for WTO. But in 2018, and with global emissions still on the rise, 
perhaps now is the time for a profound political tipping point where 
meaningful mitigation takes precedent over political expediency?

Of course, the COPs are much more than simply a space for negotiations. 
They are where a significant swathe of the climate community comes 
together, with all the direct and tacit benefits physical engagement 
offers. But did Katowice, Fiji-Bonn, Marrakech or even Paris represent 
the pinnacle of high-quality and low carbon discussion and debate? Could 
we have done much better? Perhaps established regional COP hubs 
throughout the different continents of the world, all with seamless 
virtual links to each other and the central venue. Could journalists 
have listened, interviewed and written from their offices? Could civil 
society have engaged vociferously in their home nations whilst 
facilitating climate vulnerable communities in having their voices 
heard? Almost fifty years on from the first moon landing, are the 
challenges of delivering high-quality virtual engagement really beyond 
our ability to resolve?

If the COPs are to become part of the solution rather than continuing to 
contribute to the problem, then they need to undergo a fundamental 
transformation. Moreover the UNFCCC's elite needs to escape their Big 
Sister approach and embrace rather than endeavour to close down a wider 
constituency of voices. Neither of these will occur without considerable 
and ongoing pressure from those external to, as well as within, the 
UNFCCC. The time for action is not at COP25, but now and during the 
intervening months.

*Lowlights of COP24*
i) Several climate glitterati & their entourages again jet in and parade 
around making vacuous noises. This would be a harmless aside if it were 
just a tasteless comedy act, but it is these carbon bloaters and their 
clamouring sycophants that set much of the agenda within which the rest 
of us work. Whilst they remain the conduit between the Davos mind-set 
and the research community, climate change will continue to be a failing 
techno-economic issue, ultimately bequeathed to future generations.
ii) The pathetic refusal of several nations to formally 'welcome' the 
IPCC's 1.5C report (and I say this as someone who has serious 
reservations about the mitigation analysis within the report).
iii) The blatant travel-agency nature of many of the national pavilions 
- with the periodic glasses of bubbly and exotic nibbles undermining the 
seriousness of the issues we were supposed to be there to address.
iv) The level of co-option, with academics and NGOs all too often 
singing from official Hymn sheets.
v) The absence of younger voices presenting and on panels.

*Highlights of COP24*
i) - Amy Goodman and the excellent Democracy Now (DN) team providing a 
unique journalistic conduit between the COPs and the outside world. 
Certainly DN has a political leaning, but this is not hidden. 
Consequently, and regardless of political inclination, any discerning 
listener can engage with the rich and refreshingly diverse content of 
DN's reporting. For a candid grasp of just where we are (or are not) in 
addressing climate change Amy's full interviews give time to extend well 
beyond the polarising headlines preferred by many journalists and editors.
ii) - Listening to John Schellnhuber call for "system change" and "a new 
narrative for modernity". John is arguably the most prestigious climate 
scientist present at COPs and the science darling of 'the great & the 
good' (from Merkel to the Pope). Whilst many others in Professor 
Schellnhuber's exalted position have long forgone their scientific 
integrity, John continues to voice his conclusions directly and without 
spin. I really can't exaggerate just how refreshing this is. I may not 
agree with all he has to say, but I know that what he is saying is 
carefully considered and sincere.
iii) - At the other end of the academic and age spectrum was the 
ever-present voice of Greta Thunberg soaring like a descant above the 
monotonic mutterings of the status-quo choir. We need many more voices 
from her generation prepared to boldly call out the abysmal and ongoing 
failure of my generation. Applying Occam's razor to our delusional 
substitutes for action, this fifteen year old (now sixteen) revealed 
just how pathetic our efforts have been. In so doing Greta opened up 
space for a vociferous younger generation to force through a new and 
constructive dialogue.

[1] An actual fall of around 10% in 28 years (i.e. under 0.4% p.a.)
[2] The group of national leaders who refused to "welcome" the IPCC
special report into 1.5C (SR1.5).
For a review of the COP23 (Bonn-Fiji) see:Personal reflections on COP23
An edited version was published in the Conversation: Hope from
Chaos: could political upheaval lead to a new green epoch
For a review of the Paris COP21 see: The hidden agenda: how veiled
techno-utopias shore up the Paris Agreement
An edited version was published in Nature: Talks in the city of
light generate more heat
This entry was posted in Blog, Uncategorized on January 10, 2019.

https://kevinanderson.info/blog/capricious-foes-big-sister-high-carbon-plutocrats-irreverent-musings-from-katowices-cop24/


[Now how, we can deal with it all]
*Carolyn Baker: "We Are In Unprecedented Territory, On the Threshold of 
Complete Extinction"*
Collapse Chronicles
Published on Jan 13, 2019
In this week's edition of the Collapse Chronicles interview, I have the 
pleasure and honor of speaking with author and life coach Carolyn Baker.
If you would like to become a Patron of Collapse Chronicles, here is a 
link to my Patreon page:
https://www.patreon.com/user?u=16077447
https://youtu.be/_EXh0pMuFwo?t=212


[popular, refreshing demonstration of media deception]
*Mr. Flare Explains: The Virgin Mary*
CaptainDisillusion
Published on Dec 12, 2018
While Captain Disillusion recovered from world travels, Mr. Flare took 
it upon himself to thoroughly deconstruct a video on his own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc6pK_ouO1k


*This Day in Climate History - January 15, 2009 - from D.R. Tucker*
January 14, 2009: MSNBC host Keith Olbermann denounces Senator James 
Inhofe (R-OK) for his rhetorical assault on former EPA Administrator 
Carol Browner:

"But our winner, climate change denier Senator James Inhofe of
Oklahoma, desperate to capsize the incoming energy and climate
adviser, Carol Browner, branding her a secret socialist. Sounds like
a Christmas thing, secret socialist.  And saying, 'There is another
organization that a lot of people don't realize.  It's called the
Center for American Progress.  This report that came out, this is
the group that is trying for the Fairness Doctrine, trying to, I
think, dramatically upend the First Amendment.  She, Carol Browner,
was a member of that group.'

"As he fulminated, Senator Inhofe even held up a copy of a Center
for American Progress report called 'The Structural Imbalance of
Political Talk Radio.'  There's only one problem: in that report,
the Center for American Progress specifically concludes, quote,
'There is no need to return to the fairness doctrine.  Increasing
ownership diversity will lead to more diverse programming.'

"So Senator, thanks for pointing out that Carol Browner belongs to a
group that specifically opposes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
you're so scared of.  Senator James 'Maybe next time I'll remember
to read the damn thing first' Inhofe, today's worst person in the
world!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tbsps_KOA#t=73
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no 
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages 
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.