21.4 C
Byron Shire
March 3, 2021

IPCC says coal must go in race to limit global warming

Latest News

Fossil investments

Brian Mollet, Mullumbimby It is with considerable incredulity that I read in last week’s Echo that Byron Shire has a lazy...

Other News

Council’s power

Matthew O’Reilly I refer to Ian Pickles’ letter, titled ‘Developers’ power’ (Letters, 10 February). Generally, I must agree with most of...

Ready for Byron’s latest massive development on Jonson St?

The changing face of Byron as Gold Coast and Sydney developers move in to recreate the look and feel of the town with intense development proposals.

‘The Great Reset’

Gary Opit, Wooyung I appreciated the letter by Lucas Wright (17 February) on the Great Reset conspiracy fantasy. With our...

Constitutional referendum/poll for LG elections for Byron Shire?

Is the wards fight back again? Byron Shire Council staff have advised, in the upcoming agenda, that ‘Council may conduct a Constitutional referendum or poll in conjunction with the Local Government Election, to be held in September 2021’.

Monkey see

Daniel Brown, Byron Bay Back in my early youth growing up in Mt Eliza Victoria in the ‘90s I’d secretly...

Cartoon of the week – 3 March, 2021

We love to receive letters, but not every letter will be published; the publication of letters is at the discretion of the online and print letters editors.

IPCC panel member Jim Skea: ‘The word “or” does not work in relation to the addition of 1.5°C warming. The only linking word you can use is “and”‘. Photo IPCC

Sophie Vorrath, RenewEconomy

As Australia’s Prime Minister plays with lumps of coal and prays for rain, a major new scientific report has called for the urgent, world-wide phase-out of fossil fuels, as the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C drifts rapidly and dangerously out of reach.

The report – more than three years in the making,  via more than 91 authors and editors who reviewed more than 6000 scientific papers and 42,000 comments – was tabled on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And it makes for sobering reading. (Click here to read 8 things you need to know about the 1.5°C report.)

The key finding is that if we are to have any hope of stabilising global warming at 1.5°C – and as one IPCC co-chair stressed, the report makes it ‘very clear’ that half a degree matters greatly to the impact on the planet – global emissions of carbon dioxide must reach net zero by 2050.

This means not only eradicating fossil fuels like coal from global energy systems within decades, but that energy sector emissions would need to balanced by removing carbon dioxide from the air, through methods including re-forestation, and carbon capture and storage technologies that remain largely un-proven.

‘Limiting warming to 1.5°C requires changes on an unprecedented scale. It means deep emission reductions in all sectors, the use of a wide range of technologies, behaviour changes, and a significant increase in investment in low-carbon options,’ said IPCC co-chair Jim Skea (pictured above) in a press conference broadcast live from Incheon, South Korea.

‘If we overshoot 1.5°C global warming, then we would rely on carbon dioxide removal to go back to this level,’ added co-chair Valérie Masson-Delmotte.

‘Early action to limit, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it’s possible… but if this is to be achieved there is an urgent need to accelerate,’ she said.

The good news, if you had to identify some, is that the science – and this report is being heralded as an unprecedented cross-disciplinary scientific achievement – finds that stabilising global warming is technically, practically and humanly possible. It even has numerous side benefits beyond keeping the planet inhabitable.

The bad news – or as one co-chair put it, the ‘wishful thinking’ to emerge from the report – is that it is now over to the world’s politicians to heed the messages of the report and to see the urgency of the issue.

‘This report was specifically requested by the governments who make up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change… (to) be followed up (at the next COP) in Poland in December,’ said Skea.

‘Frankly, we’ve delivered a message to the governments, we’ve given them the evidence, and it’s really up to them to decide that last step of feasibility and what can be done.

‘It’s their job. We’ve done our job, we’ve now passed the message on, and it’s their responsibility – having invited us to produce this report – to decide whether they can act on it,’ he said.

In Australia, all eyes must now turn to the country’s newest iteration of Coalition government, which has given up all pretense of factoring emissions into energy policy and seems to prides itself on ‘not entering the debate’ on climate – even as half of the nation succumbs to extreme drought conditions.

For his own part, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has gone all out to appear robustly blasé on the topic, telling the ABC’s Insiders program that Australia’s efforts to meet its Paris agreement targets would be met ‘in a canter.’

This is not what the government’s own data says, however. On Monday, Morrison went further, or deeper, backwards, promising not to spend money on climate conferences and ‘all that nonsense.’

But the recent pearl of wisdom offered by back-bencher Craig Kelly probably more accurately sums up the collective view of global warming held by the increasingly Conservative LNP: ‘The climate was always dangerous. We didn’t make it dangerous, [and] it’s fossil fuels that protect us from that climate.’

Even if Morrison’s confidence on cutting Australia’s emissions in line with Paris was based in reality, it is not enough – full stop.

The IPCC panel. Photo IPCC

Currently, the world is on track for global warming of between 2.7 to 3.7°C by 2100, according to Kelly Levin, a scientist with the nonpartisan World Resources Institute.

And to reach net zero emissions by mid-century – as the IPCC report has said we must – global emissions in 2030 would need to be about 50 per cent less than 2010 levels. Current emissions projections show the world is on track to increase emissions through 2030.

Back in Australia, it will be particularly interesting to see how the IPCC’s message on coal is received – or ignored, as the case may be.

‘It’s very clear that in the scenarios of pathways that we have assessed in this report, that coal use goes down very, very substantially by the middle of the 21st Century,’ Skea told reporters.

‘This is an essential component of any of the transitions that you would need to keep global warming within 1.5°C with either no, or limited overshoot.

‘So again, that’s a clear message to the countries, I mean, we can’t decide on countries’ energy policies… We can tell them, as we were invited, what would need to happen to put you on that pathway,’ he said.

‘But the question as to whether this will happen… this is over to the governments when they meet in Poland at the end of the year, and work on the evidence that we have provided them with.’

‘The message is that countries will need to co-operate. We don’t have a top down agreement with Paris – it’s bottom up. But they need to take collaborative and coordinated action if we’re actually going to achieve a goal of 1.5°C of warming.

‘The message is: over to governments at this stage. We’ve told you the scientific facts, the evidence, the cost, it is up to the governments, now, to decide what to do with it.’

And there’s not much time to get it right.

‘The report shows that we are at the crossroads, and what is going to happen from  now until 2030 is critical, especially for CO2 emissions’ said France’s Masson-Delmotte (pictured above).

That’s just under 12 years – or in more provincial terms, four terms of future Australian governments.

And as the UK’s co-chair, Skea added, making substantial reductions in fossil fuel generation within that period is not optional, but essential.

‘(It’s not) reforestation or fossil fuels,’ Skea pointed out. ‘Saying option option x or option y is not the way this report is framed. The word “or” does not work in relation to the addition of 1.5°C warming. The only linking word you can use is “and”.

‘There is a very clear message, that in the pathways that we have assessed, that all options need to be exercised in order to achieve the kind of level of ambition of 1.5°C.

‘We can make choices about how much of each option we use, and trade off a bit between them, but the idea that you can leave anything out is not possible.’

This article was first published in RenewEconomy and is reproduced here with permission.

Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.


  1. The only party which has an energy policy to achieve zero emissions by 2050 is the Greens. It is the only party with a ‘no new coal mine’ policy which can achieve this. Labor may say that its target is zero emissions by 2050, but how can they expect to achieve it while they are supporting new coal mines. It is critical that the Greens hold balance of power in order to put pressure on the government to enact the IPCC recommendations as a matter of urgency. If the two major parties and the public had listened to the Greens 20 years ago, we would now have a thriving renewable energy sector and wouldn’t have to face the challenges that now lie ahead. The 2 party system is failing us.

  2. How did Skea and, probably, another 10,000 officials and delegates get to South Korea. How are they getting to Poland. How did they get to Rio or Tokyo or Geneva? Even if we planned on less pollution it is plainly stupid to destroy existing infrastructure, the very infrastructure me may actually need to save some part of the planet. And what is this phrase ‘behavioural change’, would someone like to spell it out?

  3. What do we really know about briney water extraction of lithium carbonate in Chili or Argentina? Or hard core extraction here in WA? In environmental terms? The science only looks at present day circumstances, makes ready comparisons. The facts wait to be revealed. But the movement gains ground because it is the planet at stake, or so we are told. By the committees that gave us human engineering in the third world. The world is on a precipice. Not of climate change, of a burgeoning bureaucracy.

  4. What does the UN teach in their fostered third world schools? Peace politics. There’s renegades stealing the village food and firing off their weapons and the kids need peace politics! The villagers need guns themselves but the UN is happy with the status quo, can teach the status quo, and every UN body like the IPCC is made up of ten well feathered bureaucrats teaching us the difference between right and wrong.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Magic mushrooms

David Gilet, Byron Bay As noted in David Heilpern’s article (24 February), with drugs, whether medicinal or recreational, dosage is a critical consideration. You can have...

PM forced

Narelle Rendalls, Ballina With reference to the recent serious sexual assault allegations in Canberra, our Prime Minister has a lot to answer for. Many of us can...

Suffolk Park pump track for Cavanbah

Kathy Gleeson, Suffolk Park When I first heard of, and supported, the pump track at the Linda Vidler Park in Suffolk Park it was to provide...

Cartoon of the week – 3 March, 2021

We love to receive letters, but not every letter will be published; the publication of letters is at the discretion of the online and print letters editors.