Tag Archives: suburbs

The Paris Climate Agreement Could Be More Ambitious Than Anyone Expected

green4us

The US and other countries want to set a lower limit for global warming. But will that promise actually mean anything?  A climate activist at the Paris conference calls for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. US negotiators appear to agree. Michel Euler/AP The international climate summit in Paris may be getting too ambitious for its own good. There are a lot of numbers flying around at Le Bourget, the modified airport in the northern Paris suburbs where diplomats from around the world are racing toward an unprecedented international agreement to limit climate change. Many of the most important are dollar figures: the need for wealthy countries to raise $100 billion annually to help vulnerable countries deal with climate impacts; promises by the US to double spending on clean energy research and climate adaptation grants for developing countries. But right at the top of the draft agreement is another number that, in the big picture, could be the most important. That’s the overall limit on global temperature increase that the accord is designed to achieve. At the last major climate summit, in 2009 in Copenhagen, world leaders agreed to cap global warming at 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, based largely on findings from scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that anything above that level would be totally catastrophic for billions of people around the world, from small island nations to coastal cities such as New York. All the other moving pieces in the agreement, which officials here hope to conclude by late Friday or Saturday, are more or less aimed at achieving that target. It’s the number that is really driving the sense of urgency here, since earlier this year the world crossed the halfway point toward it. In other words, time is running out to keep climate change in check. As the negotiations push into their final hours, something unexpected is unfolding: That target might get actually get even more ambitious. There’s a very good chance, analysts and diplomats say, that the final agreement will call for a limit of 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F)—a crucial half-degree less global warming. Here’s the relevant section of the text; negotiators need to pick one of these options: The US delegation is supporting Option 2, according to an official in the office of Christiana Figueres, the head of the UN agency overseeing the talks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official is not authorized to speak to the press about the negotiations. That aligns with the announcement, made yesterday by Secretary of State John Kerry, that the US will join the European Union and dozens of developing countries in the so-called “High Ambition Coalition,” a negotiating bloc that has emerged to push for the strongest outcome on several key points, including the temperature limit. Negotiators in that bloc have realized, the official said, that “if they move the long-term goal further out, it will move politics in the short term closer to where they need to be.” If the 1.5 degrees C target makes it into the final agreement, that would be a massive win for climate activists and delegates from many of the most vulnerable nations, especially the small island nations. Since the 2 degrees C goal was set in Copenhagen, the leaders of low-lying countries like the Marshall Islands and the Maldives have increasingly protested that even that level of warming would essentially guarantee the destruction of their islands. The fact that the US is now backing a more ambitious target is a sign that President Barack Obama is hearing that message, said Mohamed Adow, a Kenyan climate activist with Christian Aid. “Paris is meant to indicate the direction of travel, and the US giving in on this point demonstrates their solidarity,” he said. “You’re talking about a level of warming that we can actually adapt to.” But here’s where things get problematic. There’s a huge difference between including the 1.5 degrees C limit in the agreement, and ensuring that it could actually be met. That’s because other key pieces of the agreement, that could actually make that level of ambition possible, are still far from clear. The biggest obstacle could be the hotly debated “ratchet mechanism,” which would require countries to boost their targets for greenhouse gas reductions over time, and which the US delegation appears to be resisting. The current draft of the text includes language directing countries to provide an update of their progress every five years or so, which would be compiled into a global “stock-take,” a kind of collated update, sometime after 2020. But the enforcement stops there; there’s nothing in the agreement to penalize countries that lag behind or to compel them to boost their ambitions. Yesterday, Kerry offered a confusing take on that problem when he said that in the agreement, “there’s no punishment, no penalty, but there has to be oversight.” Everyone here seems to agree that Paris is only a starting place: Without an incremental ramping-up of climate goals, 2 degrees C—not to mention 1.5—will remain out of reach. The current set of global greenhouse gas reduction targets only limit global warming to roughly 2.7 degrees C (4.9 degrees F). That’s a big gap. “It’s not looking good,” Adow said. “If the US means business, are true to their support, they need to agree to an annual review starting in 2018.” Instead, it seems that the US could be trading a concession on the 1.5 degrees C target for steadfast resistance to increasing its funding for climate adaptation in developing countries. The US is also standing in the way of a “loss and damage” component, which would require heavily polluting countries to compensate countries that have been wracked by climate impacts. Without extra money on the table to invest in clean energy, developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere won’t be able to contribute to the 1.5 degrees C target, said Victor Menotti, executive director of the International Forum on Globalization, a San Francisco-based activist group. “The US is pretty clear they want 1.5,” he said. “The question is what’s going to accompany it, and at what price. They’ll be able to claim climate leadership, but without any means of implementation.” The upshot is that the whole Paris accord risks losing credibility if it comes up with a really ambitious target and no way to reach it. All of these pieces are essential, because even with the best possible outcome in Paris, 1.5 degrees C is going to be really hard to meet, said Guido Schmidt-Traub, executive director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. In a recent report, Schmidt-Traub found that meeting the 2 degrees C limit means ceasing all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by 2070. And because most coal- and natural gas-fired power plants have multi-decade lifespans, that means we need to start planning to cease building them as soon as possible. “The bottom line is that 2C requires all countries to decarbonize their economy at a very rapid rate, but in our analysis there is some wiggle room,” he said. “If you go to 1.5C, it becomes very hard to have any wiggle room left. This is a very fundamental point that is not being discussed at all in the negotiations.”

See original:

The Paris Climate Agreement Could Be More Ambitious Than Anyone Expected

Related Posts

2014 Was the Year We Finally Started to Do Something About Climate Change
The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts
Explained in 90 Seconds: Here’s Why You Should Be Hopeful About the Paris Climate Deal
Obama Just Called Saving the Planet an “Act of Defiance” Against Terror
5 Big Developments From the Beginning of the Paris Climate Summit
Obama’s New Climate Change Message: There’s Hope

Share this:






View original article: 

The Paris Climate Agreement Could Be More Ambitious Than Anyone Expected

Posted in eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Paris Climate Agreement Could Be More Ambitious Than Anyone Expected

Can California Help the Paris Climate Talks Succeed?

green4us

Plus: Tom Steyer on Bernie Sanders’ new climate plan and how global warming will impact the 2016 election. California is no stranger to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. It has the second-highest carbon footprint of any US state (after Texas). But as diplomats from nearly every country on Earth hash through the final details of an international climate change agreement in Paris this week, they’re seeing a very different side of the Golden State. Gov. Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger, billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and a host of other Californian political and business leaders are here in the French capital this week to tout their state’s success as a carbon-slashing powerhouse. They argue that countries around the world should look to California for guidance on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nurture the clean energy industry—while creating jobs and growing the economy. “California can be a template of what is successful,” said California State Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), in a press briefing Monday with Steyer and a dozen clean energy entrepreneurs. “We can export our policies.” Indeed, the state does have a lot to be proud of. It ranks way down at #45 for per-capita carbon emissions. And it was among the first states to set a greenhouse gas reduction target, way back in 2006. That law, signed by Schwarzenegger, called on the state to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In January of this year, Brown re-upped with a new set of climate goals that are the most aggressive in the nation. California broke ground on carbon trading markets. And thanks in part to a policy that requires the state’s power companies to get a third of their electricity from renewable energy by 2020, the state routinely ranks number-one on clean energy investment and has the most solar power of any state. And as de Leon pointed out several times, all those green policies don’t seem to have dragged down the state’s economy: Total GDP is rising while emissions per unit of GDP are dropping. Climate-savvy lawmakers did suffer a setback this fall, when pressure from the oil lobby led the legislature to give up on an attempt to cut gasoline consumption in half by 2030. But that hasn’t stopped Brown and his peers from becoming leading voices here at the beginning of the second week of “COP21,” as the massive climate summit in Paris is known. On Tuesday evening, de Leon led a coalition of US mayors at an event calling for President Barack Obama to bypass Congress and push to get half the country’s power from renewables by 2030. The day before, Brown took the stage at Earth to Paris, an event organized by the UN Foundation at an ornate building in the city center packed with hundreds of scientists, policy wonks, and political leaders who needed a break from the core negotiations. (Secretary of State John Kerry followed shortly after.) “This is an art and a science,” he said, of his state’s climate campaign. “You have to push business further than they want to go, but within their capacity to reach it.” That message was echoed by Tom Steyer, whose political group NextGen Climate plans to spend huge sums of cash to make climate a central theme of the 2016 presidential election. “The opposition to progressive energy policy around the world always come out as: ‘You can have healthy jobs or a healthy environment, but you can’t have both,’” Steyer said. “But in California, we can walk the walk and talk the talk.” He also said the next president, if it’s one of the Democratic candidates who aims to continue Obama’s climate legacy (all the Republicans running are committed to overturning it), will need to rally much more support from the American people in order to overcome an obstinate Congress. You can hear more of Steyer’s remarks in the video above. It remains to be seen whether any of this will make an impression on the real negotiators, huddled in a converted airport in the city’s northern suburbs. Over the next few days, they’ll be poring over hundreds of fine-grain decisions on everything from how often countries will need to revise their climate commitments, to how much wealthy countries like the United States should have to pay to help vulnerable, poorer nations adapt to climate impacts. We’re on the ground in Paris week—stay tuned for updates. Master image: Darren J. Bradley/Shutterstock

Link:  

Can California Help the Paris Climate Talks Succeed?

Related Posts

Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution
Are Solar Companies Ripping You Off?
California Has the Country’s Most Ambitious Climate Goals. Will They Go Up in Smoke?
The Pope Thinks Climate Change Is a Major Threat. So Do American Catholics.
Bernie Sanders Wants DOJ to Investigate “Potential Fraud” by Exxon Over Climate Research
Harvard is Buying Up Vineyards in Drought-Ridden California Wine Country

Share this:






Visit source: 

Can California Help the Paris Climate Talks Succeed?

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can California Help the Paris Climate Talks Succeed?

Will twentysomethings head for the suburbs?

Will twentysomethings head for the suburbs?

The millennial generation stands to shape our cities for decades to come, largely because it’s so big: 86 million, compared to 77 million baby boomers. Millennials are just starting to turn 30, and middle-aged demographers are wondering how many of them will run to the suburbs like their parents and grandparents before them.

s.yume

From USA Today:

Now, cities face a new demographic reality: The young and single are aging and having children. If the pattern of the past 50 years holds, they might soon set their sights on suburbia.

“We know young people move the most,” says Richard Florida, whose book The Rise of the Creative Class published 10 years ago helped spark the wooing of young professionals to revive declining urban centers. “So capturing people early on in their lives in a metro really matters. It’s important to compete with suburbs for people once they get a little older and have children.”

The older they get, the less likely people are to live in cities, according to recent Census data. The peak age for urban living is 25 to 27, when 20% of that age group are nestled in urban centers. By the age of 41, about a quarter have moved to the suburbs.

Experts say getting cities baby-ready would entail improving schools, building housing near public transit, and expanding and improving parks. That all sounds well and good to me, but here’s the hitch: Demographers say millennials want to bring the suburbs to the city with more low-rise townhouses and single-family homes instead of apartments. So much for that density thing?

Cities are growing, but it’s still unclear just how much they’re growing compared to the ‘burbs.

Will young people move to the ‘burbs because older people before them did, or will cities be able to retain young families?

There are still plenty of young and childless professionals for cities to pursue (the youngest Millennials are in their teens), but as the oldest move to another life stage, cities face a balancing act: Provide adult fun and culture and trendy lofts, but build family-friendly homes and child care centers at the same time.

Even with all the changes cities are making, many Millennials will head to the suburbs when they start a family — but probably not as many as in previous decades, [cities guru Richard] Florida says.

“Before, 90% to 95% would’ve moved, and I would see it more as 60% or 70% now,” he says, based on research and observations. “My hunch is many will move to a close-in suburb that’s walkable, near transit.”

My hunch, as one of these mysterious, potentially ‘burb-bound millennials? There are still lots of factors that would keep us in the cities: urban job growth, rising gas prices, the collapse of the housing market, safety improvements, declining interest in cars, delayed marriage age. These could all be good news for urban areas — even if some of us still secretly want a ranch house with a picket fence.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Cities

,

Living

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continue reading here: 

Will twentysomethings head for the suburbs?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will twentysomethings head for the suburbs?