What is climate change?

3 December 2018
Share
Related TopicsClimate change
Scientists say that the planet is at risk of catastrophic effects from global warming.

Growing emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities are driving up temperatures. This is
increasing the possibility of extreme weather, melting polar ice and hastening global sea level
rise.

BBC News looks at what we know and don't know about the Earth's changing climate.

What is climate change?

The planet's climate has constantly been changing over geological time. The global average
temperature today is about 15C, though geological evidence suggests it has been much higher
and lower in the past.

However, the current period of warming is occurring more rapidly than many past events.
Scientists are concerned that natural fluctuations in the climate are being overtaken by a rapid,
human-induced warming that has serious implications for the stability of the planet's climate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Climate change: Where we are in seven charts

Five things the 1.5C report taught us
How years compare with the 20th Century average
How years compare with the 20th Century average
Animated chart showing that most of the coldest 10 years compared to the 20th century average
were in the early 1900s, while the warmest years have all been since 2000, with 2018 on
course to be the fourth warmest year on record
What is the "greenhouse effect"?
The greenhouse effect refers to the way the Earth's atmosphere traps some of the energy from the
Sun. Solar energy radiating back out to space from the Earth's surface is absorbed by
atmospheric greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions.

The energy that radiates back down to the planet heats both the lower atmosphere and the
surface. Without this effect, the Earth would be about 30C colder, making our planet hostile to
life.
Scientists believe we are adding to the natural greenhouse effect with gases released from
industry and agriculture (known as emissions), trapping more energy and increasing the
temperature. This is commonly referred to as global warming or climate change.

The most important of these greenhouse gases in terms of its contribution to warming is water
vapour, but concentrations show little change and it persists in the atmosphere for only a few
days.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), however, persists for much longer (it would take hundreds of years for it
to return to pre-industrial levels). In addition, there is only so much CO2 that can be soaked up
by natural reservoirs such as the oceans.

Most man-made emissions of CO2 occur through the burning of fossil fuels. When carbon-
absorbing forests are cut down and left to rot, or burned to make way for pasture, that stored
carbon is also released, contributing to global warming.

Other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are also released through human
activities, but their overall abundance is small compared with carbon dioxide.

Since the industrial revolution began in around 1750, CO2 levels have risen by more than 30%
and methane levels have risen more than 140%. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is
now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years.

What is the evidence for warming?

The world is now nearly one degree Celsius warmer than it was before widespread
industrialisation, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The global average temperature for the first 10 months of 2018 was 0.98C above the levels of
1850-1900, according to five independently maintained global data sets.

In addition, the 20 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 22 years, with the years
from 2015-2018 making up the top four.

Image caption
Source: Nasa GISS
Across the globe, the average sea level increased by 3.6mm per year over the period 2005-2015.
Most of the change in sea level was once accounted for by the thermal expansion of seawater. As
seawater warms up, the molecules become less densely packed, causing an increase in the
volume of the ocean.
But ice losses at the poles are now considered to be the major driver of this trend. Most glaciers
in temperate regions of the world and along the Antarctic Peninsula are in retreat. Since 1979,
satellite records show a dramatic decline in Arctic sea-ice extent, at an annual rate of 4% per
decade. In 2012, the ice extent reached a record minimum that was 50% lower than the 1979-
2000 average.

The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years; if the entire 2.8 million
cu km sheet were to melt, it would raise sea levels by 6m.

Satellite data shows the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, and a recent study
indicated that East Antarctica, which had displayed no clear warming or cooling trend, may also
have started to lose mass in the last few years. But scientists are not expecting dramatic changes.
In some places, mass may actually increase as warming temperatures drive the production of
more snows.

The effects of a changing climate can also be seen in vegetation and land animals. These include
earlier flowering and fruiting times for plants and changes in the territories (or ranges) occupied
by animals.

Image caption
Climate change could cause more extremes of weather
How much will temperatures rise in future?
In its 2013 assessment of the science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
forecast a range of possible scenarios based on computer modelling. But most simulations
indicate that global surface temperature change by the end of the 21st Century is likely to exceed
1.5C, relative to 1850.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that if the current warming trend
continues, temperatures could rise by 3-5C by the end of this century.

A threshold of 2C had long been regarded as the gateway to dangerous warming. More recently,
scientists and policy makers have argued that keeping temperature rise to within 1.5C is a safer
limit for the world.

Media captionClimate change: How 1.5C could change the world

But an IPCC report in 2018 suggested that keeping to the 1.5C target would require "rapid, far-
reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

Even if we cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically now, scientists say the effects will
continue because parts of the climate system, particularly large bodies of water and ice, can take
hundreds of years to respond to changes in temperature. It also takes greenhouse gases decades
to be removed from the atmosphere.

How will climate change affect us?

There are varying degrees of uncertainty about the scale of potential impacts. But the changes
could drive freshwater shortages, bring sweeping changes to our ability to produce food, and
increase the number of deaths from floods, storms, heat waves and droughts.

This is because climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events -
though linking any single event to global warming is complicated.

Media captionMatt McGrath explains why we should care about climate change
Scientists forecast more rainfall overall, but say the risk of drought in inland areas during hot
summers will increase. More flooding is expected from storms and rising sea levels. There are,
however, likely to be very strong regional variations in these patterns.

Poorer countries, which are least equipped to deal with rapid change, could suffer the most.

Vietnam's children and the fear of climate change

Would you give up beef to help the planet?
Plant and animal extinctions are predicted as habitats change faster than species can adapt, and
the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the health of millions could be
threatened by increases in malaria, water-borne disease and malnutrition.

Media captionHow temperatures have risen since 1884

As an increased amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere, there is increased uptake of CO2
by the oceans, and this causes the water to become more acidic. This ongoing process of
acidification could pose major problems for the world's coral reefs, as the changes in chemistry
prevent corals from forming a calcified skeleton, which is essential for their survival.

Computer models are used to study the dynamics of the Earth's climate and make projections
about future temperature change. But these climate models differ on "climate sensitivity" - the
amount of warming or cooling that occurs as a particular factor, such as CO2. goes up or down.

Models also differ in the way that they express "climate feedbacks".

Global warming will cause some changes that look likely to create further heating, such as the
release of large quantities of the greenhouse gas methane as permafrost (permanently frozen soil
found mainly in the Arctic) melts. This is known as a positive climate feedback.
But negative feedbacks can offset warming to some extent. Various "reservoirs" on Earth absorb
CO2 as part of the carbon cycle - the process through which carbon is exchanged between, for
example, the oceans and the land.

More: BBC News climate change stories

Climate change: Where we are in seven charts and what you can do to help
18 April 2019
Share
Related TopicsClimate change
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
The UN has warned that the goal of limiting global warming to "well below 2C above pre-
industrial levels" is in danger because major economies, including the US and the EU, are falling
short of their pledges.

But scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the leading
international body on global warming - argue the 2C pledge in the 2015 Paris accord didn't go far
enough. The global average temperature rise actually needs to be kept below 1.5C, they say.

So how warm has the world got and what can we do about it?

1. The world has been getting hotter

The world is now nearly one degree warmer than it was before widespread industrialisation,
according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The global average temperature for the first 10 months of 2018 was 0.98C above the levels of
1850-1900, according to five independently maintained global data sets.

AD

The 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with 2015-2018 making up the
top four, the WMO says.

If this trend continues, temperatures may rise by 3-5C by 2100.

One degree may not sound like much, but, according to the IPCC, if countries fail to act, the
world will face catastrophic change - sea levels will rise, ocean temperatures and acidity will
increase and our ability to grow crops, such as rice, maize and wheat, would be in danger.

What is in the Paris climate agreement?

Final call to stop 'climate catastrophe'
Urgency the key at major climate summit
2. The year 2018 set all sorts of records
Last year saw record high temperatures in many places across the world amid an unusually
prolonged period of hot weather.

Large parts of the northern hemisphere saw a succession of heatwaves take hold in Europe, Asia,
North America and northern Africa - a result of strong high pressure systems that created a "heat
dome".

Over the period shown on the map below (May to July 2018), the yellow dots show where a heat
record was broken on a given date, pink indicates places that were the hottest they had ever been
in the month shown, and dark red represents a place that was the hottest since records began.

The hottest that this location has ever been...

Tap or click to explore the data

Source: Robert A. Rohde/Berkeley Earth. Map built using Carto

The concern is that such hot and cold weather fronts are being blocked - stuck over regions for
long periods - more frequently because of climate change, leading to more extreme weather
events.

3. We are not on track to meet climate change targets

If we add up all the promises to cut emissions made by countries that have signed the Paris
climate agreement, the world would still warm by more than 3C by the end of this century.

Over the past three years, climate scientists have shifted the definition of what they believe is the
"safe" limit of climate change.

For decades, researchers argued the global temperature rise must be kept below 2C by the end of
this century to avoid the worst impacts.

Countries signing up to the Paris agreement pledged to keep temperatures "well below 2C above
pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5C".

But scientists now agree that we actually need to keep temperature rises to below 1.5C.

4. The biggest emitters are China and the US

The countries emitting the most greenhouse gases by quite a long way are China and the US.
Together they account for more than 40% of the global total, according to 2017 data from the
European Commission's Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency.

US environmental policy has shifted under the Trump administration, which has pursued a pro-
fossil fuels agenda.

After taking office, President Donald Trump announced the US would withdraw from the Paris
climate change agreement.

At the time, Mr Trump said he wanted to negotiate a new "fair" deal that would not disadvantage
US businesses and workers.

5. Urban areas are particularly under threat

Almost all (95%) of cities facing extreme climate risks are in Africa or Asia, a report by risk
analysts Verisk Maplecroft has found.

And it's the faster-growing cities that are most at risk, including megacities like Lagos in Nigeria
and Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Some 84 of the world's 100 fastest-growing cities face "extreme" risks from rising temperatures
and extreme weather brought on by climate change.

6. Arctic sea ice is also in danger

The extent of Arctic sea ice has dropped in recent years. It reached its lowest point on record in
2012.

Sea ice has been reducing for decades, with melting accelerating since the early 2000s, according
to the UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee.

The Arctic Ocean may be ice free in the summer as soon as the 2050s, unless emissions are
reduced, the committee has said.

The WMO found the extent of Arctic sea ice in 2018 was much lower than normal, with the
maximum in March the third lowest on record and the September minimum the sixth lowest.

7. We can all do more to help

While governments need to make big changes - individuals can play a role too.

Scientists say we all have to make "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes" to our
lifestyles, in order to avoid severely damaging climate change.
The IPCC says we need to: buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter; eat more locally sourced
seasonal food - and throw less of it away; drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances;
take trains and buses instead of planes; use videoconferencing instead of business travel; use a
washing line instead of a tumble dryer; insulate homes; demand low carbon in every consumer
product.

The single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet is to modify your diet
to include less meat - according to recent studies.

Scientists say we ought to eat less meat because of the carbon emissions the meat industry
produces, as well as other negative environmental impacts.

A recent study published in the journal Science highlighted a massive variation in the
environmental impact of producing the same food.

For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land produces 12 times more greenhouse gas
emissions than those reared on natural pastures.

Crucially, the analysis shows that meat with the lowest environmental impact still creates more
greenhouse gas emissions than growing vegetables and cereal crops in the least environmentally-
friendly way.

But as well as altering our diets, research suggests that farming practices need to change
significantly to benefit the environment.

By Nassos Stylianou, Clara Guibourg, Daniel Dunford and Lucy Rodgers

Sign up for a weekly chat about climate change on Facebook Messenger

Related Topics
The Paris deal was hailed as a landmark
What was agreed as part of the Paris climate deal?

The deal unites all the world's nations in a single agreement on tackling climate change for the
first time in history.

Coming to a consensus among nearly 200 countries on the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions
is regarded by many observers as an achievement in itself and has been hailed as "historic".

The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 set emission cutting targets for a handful of developed countries, but
the US pulled out and others failed to comply.
However, scientists point out that the Paris accord must be stepped up if it is to have any chance
of curbing dangerous climate change.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pledges thus far could see global temperatures rise by as much as 2.7C, but the agreement lays
out a roadmap for speeding up progress.

What are the key elements?

To keep global temperatures "well below" 2.0C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times and "endeavour
to limit" them even more, to 1.5C
To limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees,
soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100
To review each country's contribution to cutting emissions every five years so they scale up to
the challenge
For rich countries to help poorer nations by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate
change and switch to renewable energy.
Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
A participant takes a rest during the Paris talks
What's in and what has been left out?
The goal of preventing what scientists regard as dangerous and irreversible levels of climate
change - judged to be reached at around 2C of warming above pre-industrial times - is central to
the agreement.

The world is already nearly halfway there at almost 1C and many countries argued for a tougher
target of 1.5C - including leaders of low-lying countries that face unsustainable sea levels rises in
a warming world.

The desire for a more ambitious goal has been kept in the agreement - with the promise to
"endeavour to limit" global temperatures even more, to 1.5C.

Sign up for a weekly chat about climate change on Facebook Messenger

It coincides with an opinion poll by YouGov for Stop Climate Chaos Scotland (SCCS) which
said 70% of respondents supported greater action to tackle climate change.

Dr Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics, says the objective is "remarkable".

"It is a victory for the most vulnerable countries, the small islands, the least developed countries
and all those with the most to lose, who came to Paris and said they didn't want sympathy, they
wanted action."

Meanwhile, for the first time, the accord lays out a longer-term plan for reaching a peak in
greenhouse emissions "as soon as possible" and achieving a balance between output of man-
made greenhouse gases and absorption - by forests or the oceans - "by the second half of this
century".

"If agreed and implemented, this means bringing down greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero
within a few decades. It is in line with the scientific evidence we presented," says John
Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Some have described the deal as "woolly" because some of the targets were scaled down during
the negotiations.

"The Paris Agreement is only one step on a long road, and there are parts of it that frustrate and
disappoint me, but it is progress," says Greenpeace International executive director Kumi
Naidoo.

"This deal alone won't dig us out the hole we're in, but it makes the sides less steep."

What about money?

Money has been a sticking point throughout the negotiations.

Developing countries say they need financial and technological help to leapfrog fossil fuels and
move straight to renewables.

Currently they have been promised US $100bn (£67bn) a year by 2020 - not as much as many
countries would like.

The agreement requires rich nations to maintain a $100bn a year funding pledge beyond 2020,
and to use that figure as a "floor" for further support agreed by 2025.

The deal says wealthy countries should continue to provide financial support for poor nations to
cope with climate change and encourages other countries to join in on a voluntary basis.

Dr Ilan Kelman of UCL, London, says the lack of time scales is "worrying".

"The starting point of $100bn per year is helpful, but remains under 8% of worldwide declared
military spending each year."
What happens next?
Only elements of the Paris pact will be legally binding.

The national pledges by countries to cut emissions are voluntary, and arguments over when to
revisit the pledges - with the aim of taking tougher action - have been a stumbling block in the
talks.

The pact promises to make an assessment of progress in 2018, with further reviews every five
years.

As analysts point out, Paris is only the beginning of a shift towards a low-carbon world, and
there is much more to do.

"Paris is just the starting gun for the race towards a low-carbon future," says WWF-UK Chief
Executive David Nussbaum.

Prof John Shepherd of the National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, says the
agreement includes some welcome aspirations but few people realise how difficult it will be to
achieve the goals.

"Since the only mechanism remains voluntary national caps on emissions, without even any
guidance on how stringent those caps would need to be, it is hard to be optimistic that these goals
are likely to be achieved."

Final call to save the world from 'climate catastrophe'

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, Incheon, South Korea
8 October 2018
Share this with Facebook Share this with WhatsApp Share this with Messenger Share this with
Twitter Share
Related TopicsClimate change

Media captionClimate change: How 1.5C could change the world

It's the final call, say scientists, in the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global
temperatures.

Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely
off track, heading instead towards 3C.
Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching
and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".

It will be hugely expensive - but the window of opportunity remains open.

After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials
at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued
a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.

ADVERTISEMENT

What could be wiped out by temperature rise

What is climate change?
The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult
negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown
and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards.

Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and
clear.

Sign up for a weekly chat about climate change on Facebook Messenger

"The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to
two degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof
Jim Skea, who co-chairs the IPCC.

"The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit
warming to 1.5C - changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to
the way we move around with transportation."

What's the one big takeaway?

"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that
with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the
negotiations. "And they have."

The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a
dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below two
degrees this century, then the changes we would experience would be manageable.

Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability.
And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.
We can stay below it - but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and
individuals and we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global
gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.

Even then, we will still need machines, trees and plants to capture carbon from the air that we
can then store deep underground - forever.

What can I do?

Media captionNo more beef? Five things you can do to help stop rising global temperatures
The report says there must be rapid and significant changes in four big global systems:

energy • land use • cities • industry

But it adds that the world cannot meet its target without changes by individuals, urging people
to:

buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter and more locally sourced seasonal food - and throw less of
it away • drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances • take trains and buses instead of
planes • use videoconferencing instead of business travel • use a washing line instead of a tumble
dryer • insulate homes • demand low carbon in every consumer product
Lifestyle changes can make a big difference, said Dr Debra Roberts, the IPCC's other co-chair.

"That's a very empowering message for the individual," she said. "This is not about remote
science; it is about where we live and work, and it gives us a cue on how we might be able to
contribute to that massive change, because everyone is going to have to be involved."

"You might say you don't have control over land use, but you do have control over what you eat
and that determines land use.

"We can choose the way we move in cities and if we don't have access to public transport - make
sure you are electing politicians who provide options around public transport."

The hottest that this location has ever been...

Tap or click to explore the data

Source: Robert A. Rohde/Berkeley Earth. Map built using Carto

Five steps to 1.5

Global emissions of CO2 need to decline by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030
Renewables are estimated to provide up to 85% of global electricity by 2050
Coal is expected to reduce to close to zero
Up to seven million sq km of land will be needed for energy crops (a bit less than the size of
Australia)
Global net zero emissions by 2050
How much will all this cost?
It won't come cheap. The report says to limit warming to 1.5C, will involve "annual average
investment needs in the energy system of around $2.4 trillion" between 2016 and 2035.

Experts believe this number needs to be put in context.

"There are costs and benefits you have to weigh up," said Dr Stephen Cornelius, a former UK
IPCC negotiator now with WWF. He says making big emissions cuts in the short term will cost
money but be cheaper than paying for carbon dioxide removal later this century.

"The report also talks about the benefits as there is higher economic growth at 1.5 degrees than
there is at 2C and you don't have the higher risk of catastrophic impacts at 1.5 that you do at
two."

How years compare with the 20th Century average

What happens if we don't act?
The researchers say that if we fail to keep temperature rises below 1.5C, we are in for some
significant and dangerous changes to our world.

You can kiss coral reefs goodbye, as the report says they would be essentially 100% wiped out at
two degrees of warming.

Global sea-level will rise about 10cm (4in) more if we let warming go to 2C. That may not sound
like much but keeping to 1.5C means that 10 million fewer people would be exposed to the risks
of flooding.

There are also significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow
crops such as rice, maize and wheat.

"We are already in the danger zone at one degree of warming," said Kaisa Kosonen, from
Greenpeace. "Both poles are melting at an accelerated rate; ancient trees that have been there for
hundreds of years are suddenly dying; and the summer we've just experienced - basically, the
whole world was on fire."

Is this plan at all feasible?

Analysis by David Shukman, BBC science editor
The countdown to the worst of global warming seems to have accelerated. Seriously damaging
impacts are no longer on a distant horizon later this century but within a timeframe that appears
uncomfortably close.

By the same token, the report's "pathways" for keeping a lid on temperatures all mean that hard
decisions cannot be delayed:

a shift away from fossil fuels by mid-century

coal phased out far sooner than previously suggested
vast tracts of land given over to forests
It's mind-bending stuff and some will say it's hopelessly unrealistic, a climate scientists' fantasy.
So is any of it plausible? On the one hand, the global economy relies on carbon and key activities
depend on it. On the other, wind turbines and solar panels have tumbled in price and more and
more countries and states such as California are setting ambitious green targets.

Ultimately, politicians will face a difficult choice: persuade their voters that the revolutionary
change outlined in the report is urgently needed or ignore it and say the scientists have got it
wrong.

Is all this about saving small island states?

The idea of keeping the global temperature rise to 1.5 is something very close to the hearts and
minds of small island and low-lying states, which fear being inundated with flooding if
temperatures go to two degrees.

But over the three years that the report was in preparation, more and more scientific evidence has
been published showing the benefits of staying close to 1.5C are not just for island nations in the
Pacific.

"If you save a small island country, then you save the world," said Dr Amjad Abdulla, an IPCC
author, from the Maldives. "Because the report clearly states that no-one is going to be immune.
It's about morality - it's about humanity."

How long have we got?

Not long at all. But that issue is now in the hands of political leaders. The report says hard
decisions can no longer be kicked down the road. If the nations of the world don't act soon, they
will have to rely even more on unproven technologies to take carbon out of the air - an expensive
and uncertain road.

"They really need to start work immediately. The report is clear that if governments just fulfil the
pledges they made in the Paris agreement for 2030, it is not good enough. It will make it very
difficult to consider global warming of 1.5C," said Prof Jim Skea.
"If they read the report and decide to increase their ambitions and act more immediately, then
1.5C stays within reach - that's the nature of the choice they face."

Campaigners and environmentalists, who have welcomed the report, say there is simply no time
left for debate.

"This is the moment where we need to decide" said Kaisa Kosonen. "We want to move to clean
energy, sustainable lifestyles. We want to protect our forests and species. This is the moment that
we will remember; this is the year when the turning point happened."
So will cutting carbon be the main focus of the meeting?
Rather than spending all their time working on how to increase ambitions to cut carbon,
conference delegates are likely to focus on trying to finalise the technical rules of how the Paris
agreement will work.

Image copyrightFABRICE COFFRINI

Image caption
A collage of children's drawing about climate change laid out on a glacier in Switzerland
While the agreement was ratified in record time by more than 180 countries in 2016, it doesn't
become operational until 2020.

Before then, delegates must sort out common rules on measuring, reporting and verifying
(checking to avoid the misreporting of) greenhouse gas emissions, and on how climate finance is
going to be provided.

"The rulebook is the thing that will absorb most of the negotiators' capacity at this year's COP,"
said Camilla Born, from the climate change think tank, E3G.

"It's no surprise, as agreeing the Paris rules is both technically and politically a complicated task
- but it is worth it!"

What is in the Paris climate agreement?

Last four years are 'world's hottest'
Race to pull greenhouse gases from air
Right now, that rule book runs to several hundred pages with thousands of brackets, indicating
areas of dispute.

But what about limiting emissions?

Under the Paris agreement, each country decides for itself the actions it will take when it comes
to cutting carbon. Some observers believe that the changed mood and the urgency of the science
will prompt action.
"We are hoping that at COP24, countries will make declarations of how they will raise their
ambitions by 2020. This is a very important moment," said Fernanda Carvalho with campaign
group WWF.

"Two years is a short time span for that to happen. Countries need to act fast."

Why is the UN process slow-moving?

There is much frustration with the snail-like pace, especially among some campaigners who feel
that the scale of the threat posed by rising temperatures hasn't been fully grasped by politicians.

Image copyrightHANNA FRANZEN

Image caption
Greta Thunberg, who has refused to go to school in Sweden in protest over climate change, will
be attending COP24
"Governments across the world have completely failed to protect their citizens," said a
spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion, the social movement that pushes for radical change on
climate issues.

"Instead, they have pursued quick profit and big business. We need this to change. At COP24,
we want to ensure that the focus is not just on getting the technical Paris rulebook as robust as
possible, but also that governments do not lose sight of the bigger picture."

Others involved in the UN process say that real progress is being made in tackling one of the
most complex problems ever faced by the world.

"We have a $300bn renewable energy economy at work today - it's not peanuts; it's an energy
revolution that has unfolded on the back of, yes, a sometimes sticky climate negotiation process,"
said Achim Steiner, who heads the United Nations Development Programme.

How much of a role will money play in making progress in Poland?

Many developing countries see progress on issues around finance to be critical to moving
forward. They have been promised $100bn every year from 2020 as part of the Paris agreement.

Some are sceptical about what they see as foot-dragging and obfuscation by richer countries
when it comes to handing over the cash. Negotiators say that moving forward on finance is the
lynchpin of progress in this meeting.

"A key finding of the recent IPCC report, and one that has often been overlooked, is that without
a dramatic increase in the provision of climate finance, the possibility of limiting warming to 2C
(to say nothing of the safer 1.5C goal) will irretrievably slip away," said Amjad Abdulla, chief
negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States.

Are there concerns the meeting is in a country reliant on coal?

Yes - among government negotiators and observers alike. The fact that the conference is taking
place in a strong coal region, in a city that is home to the biggest coal company in the EU, is
troubling to many.

The Polish government says that it is sticking with the fuel, and has announced that it is planning
to invest next year in the construction of a new coal mine in Silesia.

This bullish approach has drawn condemnation from some.

"Unfortunately, this week's announcement by the [meeting's] Polish presidency that it will
include coal companies as sponsors of the COP sends a very worrisome signal before the
conference even begins," said Sébastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Centre for International
Environmental Law.

Will President Trump and the US feature at all?

Although the US has withdrawn from the Paris agreement, it cannot leave until 2020, so its
negotiators have been taking part in meetings and have not obstructed the process. America is
expected to participate in COP24.

However, given the President's well known love of coal, it has been reported that the White
House will once again organise a side event promoting fossil fuels. A similar event at the last
COP provoked outrage from many delegates.

UN climate conference 03 Dec- 14 Dec 2018

The summit comes three years after the 2015 Paris accord on climate change, at which all
countries agreed a plan to limit carbon emissions. Now is the moment governments must start
deciding what to do to make sure that plan is put into effect.Climate change: 'Trump effect'
threatens Paris pact
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, Katowice
3 December 2018
Share this with Facebook Share this with WhatsApp Share this with Messenger Share this with
Twitter Share
Related TopicsCOP25
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
President Donald Trump's words and actions are restricting global efforts to cut carbon,
according to a new study.
The analysis says the withdrawal by the US from the Paris climate agreement has created the
political cover for others to go slow on their commitments.

The author says the world is in denial about President Trump's true impact.

The study comes as delegates begin two weeks of UN-led talks here on the future of the Paris
pact.

Climate chiefs warn 'world at crossroads'

Trump: Climate scientists have 'agenda'
Dire warning on US climate change impacts
Trump dismisses US climate change report
President Trump has justified pulling his country out of the landmark climate agreement by
asserting that he was elected to serve the citizens of Pittsburgh and not Paris.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, other international leaders promised that there would be no going back, and that the
US pull-out would galvanise efforts to cut carbon.

The sense of unity was underlined in November 2017 when Syria signed the Paris agreement,
leaving the US alone in the world as the only country rejecting the deal.

Media captionUN Secretary General Antonio Guterres: "Climate change is a global issue, we are
all failing."
But this new report, from the Institute of International and European Affairs, suggests that
President Trump's words and deeds are causing "very real damage" to the Paris agreement.

The author outlines three key areas where the Trump effect is having an impact.

Under the president, US federal environmental regulations on oil, gas and coal have been rolled
back and, as a result, some of the dirtiest fossil fuel projects have become more attractive to
investors.

Goodwill damaged
The author says that the US withdrawal from Paris has created the "moral and political cover for
others to follow suit", citing the examples of Russia and Turkey - which have both declined to
ratify the Paris deal.
The US pull-out has also "severely damaged goodwill at international negotiations", something
that's crucial to progress in these talks here in Poland.

When it comes to fossil fuels, the author cites the example of investments in the coal sector by
36 US banks, which saw a decline of 38% in 2016 after the Paris agreement was signed, but
which rose by 6% in 2017 after President Trump was sworn in.

"This is not a coincidence, there is something underpinning these trends and that's political
signals," said Joseph Curtin, a senior fellow at the IIEA.

"The Paris agreement sent a shiver down the spine of institutional investors globally and made
them question if they were exposed to stranded assets and whether these political leaders were
really serious about climate change."

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image caption
President Trump made support for the coal industry a key election promise
"There's absolutely no doubt that the Trump effect has created a sense of uncertainty in terms of
the political commitment to achieve anything close to a two degree C target."

The switch to coal and oil investments has hurt renewable energy investment in the US and this
has had a global knock-on effect, the author says.

On the political front, Russia, Turkey, Australia and Brazil have all cited the example of
President Trump to limit their actions on climate change. Russia and Turkey have said they will
not ratify the agreement.

The newly elected President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has sent mixed messages about climate
change. But in recent days, his government has ruled out hosting next year's major climate
conference.

The impact of populist governments on the climate change agenda was also highlighted by UN
Secretary General Antonio Guterres, speaking recently to the BBC.

"It is clear to me that the world is more polarised, we have more and more nationalist approaches
being popular and winning elections or having strong election results," he said.

"We see the trust between public opinion and institutions and also international organisations
being eroded and this has led, in my opinion, to a lack of the necessary political will."

Sour atmosphere
While the EU, China and India have promised to take more ambitious steps to bolster the Paris
agreement, study author Joseph Curtin believes they will be reluctant to take major steps without
the participation of the US.

"There's no way that the big player will upgrade their ambition without some sort of quid pro quo
from the US," he told BBC News.

"The likelihood that they will take on more ambitious pledges in the short term has certainly
been damaged."

However, some of those involved in the UN climate process argue that to focus on the impacts of
Trump is mistaken.

"It's not just about political leaders in Brazil and the US," said Achim Steiner, who heads the
United Nations Development Programme.

"The world has seven billion people and over 190 nations, so they are not the entire story - there
has been extraordinary leadership on this issue by India and China, countries that 10 years ago
were being pilloried for not acting on climate change."

The author of the new study says that the Paris deal will survive in the short term.

"But in the longer term, without US support, the Paris agreement won't ultimately be effective
and we should be honest about that."Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'
26 November 2018
Share this with Facebook Share this with WhatsApp Share this with Messenger Share this with
Twitter Share
Related TopicsClimate change

Media captionClimate change: How 1.5C could change the world

US President Donald Trump has cast doubt on a report by his own government warning of
devastating effects from climate change.

Asked outside the White House about the findings that unchecked global warming would wreak
havoc on the US economy, he said: "I don't believe it."

The report found that climate change will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars annually
and damage health.

The Trump administration has pursued a pro-fossil fuels agenda.

The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced and warn that natural
fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity.

ADVERTISEMENT

What is climate change?

Final call to halt 'climate catastrophe'

Media captionPresident Trump: "We're the cleanest we've ever been"

What did President Trump say?
He told reporters on Monday that he had "read some of" Friday's report, which was compiled
with help from US government agencies and departments.

Mr Trump said other countries must take measures to cut their emissions.

"You're going to have to have China and Japan and all of Asia and all these other countries, you
know, it [the report] addresses our country," he said.

"Right now we're at the cleanest we've ever been and that's very important to me.

"But if we're clean, but every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good.

"So I want clean air, I want clean water, very important."

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused the Trump administration of
trying to hide the report.

What did the report say?

The Fourth National Climate Assessment outlines the potential impacts of climate change across
every sector of American society.

"With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors
are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the
current gross domestic product (GDP) of many US states," the report says.

"Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate
change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede
the rate of economic growth over this century."

The report notes that the effects of climate change are already being felt in communities across
the country, including more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events.
But it says that projections of future catastrophe could change if society works to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and "to adapt to the changes that will occur".

Image copyrightEPA
Image caption
The report warns that the frequency of wildfires could increase if climate change is unchecked
What has President Trump previously said on climate change?
In October, President Trump accused climate change scientists of having a "political agenda",
telling Fox News he was unconvinced that humans were responsible for the earth's rising
temperatures.

After taking office he announced the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change
agreement, which commits another 187 other countries to keeping rising global temperatures
"well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels.

At the time, Mr Trump said he wanted to negotiate a new "fair" deal that would not disadvantage
US businesses and workers.

During his election campaign in 2016 Mr Trump said climate change was "a hoax". However he
has since rowed back on that statement saying in a recent interview: "I don't think it's a hoax, I
think there's probably a difference."

Risk of 'Hothouse Earth' despite CO2 cuts

Climate and miscarriage in Bangladesh
How great is the climate threat?
A report released in October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the
leading international body evaluating climate change - said it could be stopped only if the world
made major, and costly, changes.

That means reducing global emissions of CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and reducing
coal use to almost zero and using up to seven million sq km (2.7 million square miles) for land
energy crops.

If the world fails to act, the researchers warned, there would be some significant and dangerous
changes to our world, including rising sea levels, significant impacts on ocean temperatures and
acidity, and the ability to grow crops such as rice, maize and wheat.Who is Greta Thunberg, the
#FridaysForFuture activist?
29 November 2019
Share this with Facebook Share this with WhatsApp Share this with Messenger Share this with
Twitter Share
Related TopicsSchools' climate change protests
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
One day in late August 2018, Greta Thunberg took up position outside Sweden's Parliament for
the first time. She held a simple sign, black letters on a white board, that said "School Strike for
Climate."

"It felt like I was the only one who cared about the climate and the ecological crisis," she told the
BBC. The 15-year-old was by herself, but not for long.

Within a year, her school strike, carried on through all weather, had inspired millions of young
people around the world to take to the streets and demand action on climate change.

As thousands of students again protest in major global cities, here's a look at what we know
about the teenager who started it all.

Where did she grow up?

Ms Thunberg, the elder of two girls, was born on 3 January, 2003. She grew up in Stockholm
with her mother Malena Ernman, an opera singer and former Eurovision Song Contest
participant, and her actor father Svante Thunberg. Her father is a descendant of Svante
Arrhenius, a scientist who came up with a model of the greenhouse effect. He was awarded the
Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ms Thunberg said her parents were "as far from climate activists as possible" before she made
them aware of the issue. She persuaded her parents to become vegan, and in 2016 convinced her
mother to stop flying, despite her mother frequently travelling overseas for work.

They have co-written a book with their daughter called Our House is on Fire: Scenes of a Family
and a Planet in Crisis. It is set to be released next year.

Ms Thunberg has Asperger Syndrome, a developmental disorder, and has described it as a gift
and a superpower.

How did she get involved in protesting?

She says she first learned about climate change when she was eight and couldn't understand why
people weren't taking action.

"I remember thinking it was very strange that we were capable of changing the entire face of the
Earth and the precious thin layer of atmosphere that makes it our home. Because if we were
capable of doing this, then why weren't we hearing about it everywhere?" she wrote in the
Guardian.

Media caption"You are failing us" - Greta tells world leaders

In May 2018, Ms Thunberg won a climate change essay competition in a local newspaper. Three
months later, she decided to start protesting in front of the Swedish parliament building, vowing
to continue until the government met the carbon emissions target set out by world leaders in
Paris in 2015.

Ms Thunberg said her parents weren't enthusiastic about her protest at the start, and told her that
she would have to do it without their help.

How did her protests grow into a global movement?

After she was pictured outside the Swedish parliament building with her sign, the teenager's
protests went viral on social media.

As support for her cause grew, other strikes started around the world, and the message spread
with the hashtag #FridaysForFuture. By December 2018, more than 20,000 students around the
world had joined her in countries including Australia, the UK, Belgium, the US and Japan.

Image copyrightEPA
Image caption
Greta-supporting students take part in the global climate strike in Turin in September 2019
Ms Thunberg travelled to some of the strikes in Europe, choosing to travel by train to limit her
impact on the environment.

In April, she made an appearance at the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, telling the
crowd: "For way too long, the politicians and the people in power have gotten away with not
doing anything. We will make sure that politicians will not get away with it for any longer."

In September, Ms Thunberg travelled to New York to speak at the UN Climate Conference. She
made her way there on a zero-emissions boat in a journey that lasted two weeks.

The week of her arrival, millions of people around the world took part in a climate strike,
underlining the scale of her influence.

Media captionMillions of people join the environmental strike led by schoolchildren across the
world
During her address at the UN, she blasted politicians for relying on young people for answers to
climate change.

"How dare you," she said. "I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of
the ocean, yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you?

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. We will be watching
you."

What do her critics say?

Her message has not been well received by everyone, most notably prominent conservative
voices. But she has responded defiantly and often with humour.

After her UN appearance, US President Donald Trump appeared to mock her by saying she
"seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future".

Ms Thunberg then changed her Twitter biography to include Mr Trump's words. She did the
same weeks later when Russian President Vladimir Putin called her a "kind but poorly informed
teenager".

What is next for Greta?

Ms Thunberg has taken a year off school to be able to attend the conference in New York, and
the world's major annual climate summit in the Spanish capital Madrid in December.

The Madrid summit was meant to be held in Chile - and she was planning to travel overland
across South America to get there. But the teenager changed her plans after Chile cancelled due
to large political protests. Spain stepped in as summit host and Ms Thunberg decided to sail back
across the Atlantic after finding a ride.

Skip Twitter post by @GretaThunberg

Greta Thunberg
✔
@GretaThunberg
So happy to say I'll hopefully make it to COP25 in Madrid.
I’ve been offered a ride from Virginia on the 48ft catamaran La Vagabonde. Australians
@Sailing_LaVaga ,Elayna Carausu & @_NikkiHenderson from England will take me across the
Atlantic.
We sail for Europe tomorrow morning!

View image on Twitter

59K
4:02 AM - Nov 13, 2019