Six years on from the cheers, claps and cries to welcome the Paris Agreement, global temperatures and emissions are rising, as dusk settles on the promise the agreement holds for planet Earth. It’s fading hope is today matched with faltering efforts to implement its Article 6. Michael Davies-Venn argues that failures to reach agreements on Article 6 illustrates an unfortunate mistake of conceiving of an imminent global environmental crisis as an economic problem. This misconception, he says, creates an illusion that an international carbon market is a suitable climate change solution.
The implications of weather-attribution methodology, which pins individual extreme weather events to human-induced global warming, are vast.
Fossil fuels are not only linked to high emissions and climate change, but are also part of a social identity that is faltering: masculinity, argues Cara Daggett, a political scientist who coined the phrase “petro-masculinity”. The transition to a more climate-friendly future is connected to the future of fossil fuels and also to challenges to (white) male privilege. This struggle is evident when talking about the current decision-making landscape, which is predominantly male and has scant room for diverse perspectives. Kathrin Meyer draws a line between threatened masculinity and the stagnation of key energy and climate issues.
Too late, too slow, too stifled, but it has arrived: Climate policy is finally taking centre-stage in the public debate. Michał Olszewski reports from Poland.
Climate change and international decarbonisation efforts led Ecuador to expand its renewable energy capacities. Given its significant potential for renewable energies, why is the nation unable to shake off its dependency on oil and move to a clean energy mix? Kathrin Meyer explores the factors at play in the South American country.
Long recognized as an alternative to fossil fuels and once again heralded as an invaluable tool for tackling climate change, hydrogen is a key component within many of the recently announced national net-zero energy plans being rolled out by individual nations as well as the European Union. Hydrogen will likely be given a center role in new President Joe Biden’s climate plan too. To help sort out hope from hype, climate think tank, Carbon Brief recently published a detailed and invaluable hydrogen explainer. With comments from one of the analysts quoted in the explainer, L. Michael Buchsbaum helps untangle hydrogen’s reality.
Achieving the goals of the European Green Deal and striking climate neutrality by 2050 means transforming the entire mobility sector, which currently makes up nearly 30 percent of the bloc’s CO2 emissions. To help steer readers in the right direction, the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung’s (hbs) new 2021 European Mobility Atlas provides a host of fact-based recommendations from sector experts. As 2021 is also the European Year of Rail, many of the Atlas’ graphics focus on this key sector, including the impacts of enhanced night-train service and more continent-wide cross-border connections. Franz Timmermans, Executive Vice President of the European Commission for the European Green Deal, dubbed the publication a “fantastic resource,” and underscored that “the more people who know about this, the more successful we’ll be.” A review by L. Michael Buchsbaum.
The time to panic is clearly upon us. No more beating around the bush: we must recognise the inevitability of the climate catastrophe. But has everyone noticed it yet? The beginning of 2020 saw the premiere of a documentary by American director Jonathan Ramsey about the Polish atmospheric physicist Szymon Malinowski, who is fighting for the climate. The film’s title announces that It’s okay to panic. It would appear that the public is realising that the time has come for controlled panic, or rather for action. The film presents determined social activists and wise scientists. There are still plenty of politicians and media outlets that have not recognised that it is time to panic, nor noticed the inevitability of climate change in the country and the world. Where does this resistance come from? What is the climate debate in Poland like, and who is generating it? Agata Skrzypczyk reports
Though increasingly framed as a key way to slow climate change, for most commercial Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) operations, selling the carbon they capture to produce more fossil fuels through Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) production is the only way they can ensure profits for investors. According to a count by the Global CCS Institute, of the 28 currently operable CCS complexes worldwide, 22 rely on EOR as their back end “storage” system. CCS advocates hope that under the right public policy regimes, this profit-making motive will help scale up CCS operations while driving costs down. Getting the public onboard means selling CCS as a way to prevent climate change, but who pays when they fail? L. Michael Buchsbaum reviews one of 2020’s biggest CCS disasters as the fourth part of the on-going Seduction series.
Touted as a key component within many emerging national net-zero emissions strategies, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) received a huge credibility boost from several recent IPCC and IEA studies. But CCS’ greatest advantage is that it enables oil majors to have a market in an otherwise decarbonized economy. What it doesn’t do is stop the pollution stream. Framed as a climate solution, in fact most current and planned projects use the CO2 they capture to produce more fossil fuels through various enhanced oil recovery (EOR) schemes. As part of an ongoing series deconstructing CCS, L. Michael Buchsbaum reviews some recent history.