Dear reader,
The reactions to the third part of the world climate report published on Monday show that we really live in crazy times.
It is now official that the Earth must cut annual CO2 emissions by around half by 2030 in order to keep the important limit of less than 1.5 degrees of warming.
It is also clear that we only have a certain carbon budget and a few years until it is exhausted.
The existing
gas pipelines, oil production towers and coal mines alone
could use up this remaining budget quite quickly.
That is why the central finding of the 2900-page report is: The only way to do it is to phase out fossil fuel combustion and quickly switch to alternative energy sources.
As the now famous graphic of the report - SPM7 - shows (see tweet), wind and solar energy are by far the cheapest climate protection solutions and also those with the highest potential.
After this finding, it is difficult to understand that a day later, hundreds of MEPs, led by the Conservatives, voted to support new gas pipelines - and not just any one, but, among other things, the longest gas pipeline in Europe to date - and the deepest underwater pipeline in the world (three Kilometre).
The "EastMed" or Eastern Mediterranean Pipeline is intended to connect Cyprus and Crete directly to the Greek mainland.
"We simply don't take the climate emergency seriously," complained MEP Michael Bloss after the vote.
Yes, it is war and we need European independence.
But does Europe really need new gas pipelines when the IPCC report states that gas consumption should actually be reduced by 70 percent (!) in less than 30 years?
How about mega wind farms off Cyprus?
On the other hand, high-ranking diplomats - the emphasis is on:
diplomats
- found unusually harsh words: After the publication of the IPCC report, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres accused some governments and companies of "lying" about their climate protection commitment.
The new IPCC report is a »catalogue of empty promises«.
Wow.
Such clear announcements would otherwise have been expected from Fridays for Future.
But from the UN boss?
A rescue attempt for the oil
And that's not all.
The concluding discussion of the world climate report was also quite controversial – it was allegedly the longest in the history of the IPCC.
In a 40-hour marathon session, academics and government officials debated the "Summary for Policymakers."
Of course, governments have no say in the long version of the report, i.e. the original, as the scientific evidence alone is decisive.
Curiously enough, the summary for decision-makers does – which put climate journalists around the world to a hard test of patience on Monday.
Because the press is excluded from these negotiations about the summary and media representatives only get the final documents at the last minute.
That's why I had to settle for a few author talks and a pre-release version, a leak from a few weeks ago, over the weekend.
When I finally read the final version on Monday afternoon, I was amazed: the summary was weakened in many places.
Two examples.
climate justice
In the (old) leak, for example, Article B3.3 said: »The ten richest percent of humanity are responsible for 36 to 45 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.
The poorest ten percent only for three to five percent.« This number proves: The rich of this world are the problem, not the poor.
Clear thing.
Unfortunately, the revealing numbers disappeared in the final version.
Then it was only stated in the introduction to paragraph B3 that ten percent of the households with the highest per capita consumption have a “disproportionate” share of global greenhouse gas emissions.
In sub-article B3.3, there is no longer any mention of the rich, it only says that the low-income people in this world urgently need to be helped out of their (energy) poverty.
Why are scientifically proven numbers simply left out in the summary?
Controversial CO2 avoidance and storage technologies
This was about the assessment of certain technologies for CO2 avoidance.
The (old) leak said: "The expansion and global spread of technologies for carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear energy and carbon dioxide capture (CDR) have not progressed as quickly as expected." The reason for this are economic "barriers, institutional challenges and
public concerns
about safety and sustainability.«
Sounds logical.
In fact, all three »climate protection solutions« have so far hardly played a role.
For example CCS: This is the abbreviation for Carbon Capture and Storage and describes the technology in which CO₂ from a production plant can be captured, liquefied and finally stored underground.
Companies are currently testing this in pilot plants, for example at cement works.
The advantage: With CCS, unavoidable emissions such as those in cement production can be easily separated.
As a result, production can even become CO2-neutral with a lot of effort.
The disadvantage: It is expensive and there was often resistance from the population because nobody wants an underground CO2 repository in their vicinity.
In addition, oil companies (and governments such as Norway and Saudi Arabia) are suspected of wanting to use the technology in order to be able to continue to diligently produce and sell oil in the future.
The latter seems to be the case.
Because the new version now says that CCS "could make it possible" to use fossil fuels longer and avoid "stranded assets".
The global underground CO2 storage capacity is given as 1000 gigatonnes of CO₂, »which is more than the CO2 storage needed by the year 2100 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees«.
It is true that there are obstacles, it is now said, but
"favourable framework conditions"
could reduce them.
Also interesting: Atomic energy is not mentioned at all at the end.
Enlarge image
Oil production in Saudi Arabia
Photo: Bernard Gerard/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
Saudi Arabia weakens paragraph on phasing out fossil fuels
How could it come to this?
The final negotiations are not public.
However, it is quite clear that countries have lobbied for their interests.
The entire debate can now be read in the Earth Negotiation Bulletin (ENB), which closely follows all UN negotiations.
Apparently, as one of the world's largest oil producers and exporters, Saudi Arabia lobbied for the positive portrayal of CCS technology and also toned down the fossil fuel phase-out sales pitch.
While it was previously said that the world needs a “substantial reduction in fossil fuels” (old leak), it now only says that one should switch from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources
or
to fossil fuels with CCS.
Such differences are subtle but politically explosive: Despite the fact that CCS technology is only being piloted in a few industrial plants in the world and, as mentioned before, is expensive (at least 100 euros per tonne of CO₂), it is now being listed as a serious alternative.
In the worst case, states now have the opportunity to refer to CCS in order to legitimize their oil production to continue as it is.
In addition, millions of tax dollars are already flowing into such test projects in the EU.
Thanks to formulations like this, even more CCS projects could be funded by the state in the future - and so less money flows into other climate protection measures.
According to the ENB minutes, the discussion about CCS was quite long overall – and other countries also took part.
France, Germany and Mexico were in favor of deleting the reference for CCS because the technology was not mature.
The Netherlands – where such pilot plants are already under construction – were more on the side of Saudi Arabia.
CCS may also make sense for some industries.
But the technology simply cannot be considered a real climate solution.
However, if you read the report correctly, you will see that the potential of this technology is minimal and that it is cheaper and less risky for all countries to rely on wind and sun (see graphic in the tweet).
If you like, we will inform you once a week about the most important things about the climate crisis - stories, research results and the latest developments on the biggest issue of our time. You can subscribe to the newsletter here.
The topics of the week
Third part of the world climate report: The climate crisis has become a national security issue
The world has only ten years left to prevent the worst consequences of global warming.
Experts have now developed comprehensive climate protection strategies.
However, some are extremely unpopular.
Response to the new world climate report: Guterres accuses governments and companies of lying about climate protection
They say one thing - and do the other.
UN chief Guterres takes a hard line on those who brake climate protection.
The previous measures against global warming are a disgrace.
Climate tax on heating costs: Who will have to pay how much in the future – and whether that can work
So far, the costs for the climate tax have been solely a matter for the tenants.
Now the traffic light has agreed that the landlords must also take on a part.
But what exactly is it?
Answers to the most important questions.
Ecosystems on the verge of collapse: How Putin's war weakens the fight against climate change
Does the attack on Ukraine herald a renaissance of fossil fuels?
Ölzar Putin plays not only with the fate of a country, but with that of the entire planet.
Energy policy of the traffic light coalition: Minister of War Economy
Robert Habeck must ensure that Germany does not run out of energy.
He negotiates with autocrats, cooperates with industry and even burns more coal.
Is he neglecting his most important goal?
"Climate Report" podcast: How aviation wants to become climate-friendly
For a long time, flying was considered modern and forward-looking.
But the high CO₂ emissions per person and flight kilometer no longer fit with the times.
Aviation needs a green turn - we look at the state of research.
Heat wave in the Antarctic: “Huge loop in the jet stream”
In the Antarctic, temperatures were up to 47 degrees Celsius higher than normal for days – a worrying record.
Polar researcher Markus Rex on the causes.
Stay confident,
your Susanne Götze
