Latest news with #UNIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange
Boston Globe
29-05-2025
- Science
- Boston Globe
Earth could cross a key climate threshold in two years. Here's why it matters.
The accelerated timeline is due to higher-than-expected temperatures over the past few years, diminishing air pollution that cooled the Earth, and greenhouse gas emissions that continue to rise globally, despite the growth of renewable energy. And it means that irreversible tipping points in the climate system — such as the melting of Arctic ice sheets or the wide-scale collapse of coral reefs — are closer at hand than scientists previously believed. Advertisement The WMO report predicted five more years of sky-high temperatures — which, combined with hotter conditions driven by the El Niño weather pattern, mean that the planet is poised to officially warm 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over a sustained period by 2027. 'There is no way, barring geoengineering, to prevent global temperatures from going over 1.5 degrees,' said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and the climate research lead at the payments company Stripe. Geoengineering refers to deliberately cooling the planet, for example by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere — an idea that is hotly debated. Nearly a decade ago, delegates from more than 190 nations agreed in Paris to pursue 'efforts to limit the temperature increase' to 1.5 degrees Celsius, after small-island nations protested that higher temperatures would sink their land beneath rising waves. Advertisement While there is no official definition, most scientists and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change understand the goal to be a long-term average temperature, over 20 or 30 years. (In a single year, temperatures could spike because of El Niño or other temporary factors.) That's why, when the world passed the first 12-month period of temperatures over 1.5 degrees Celsius in February 2024, scientists warned that this didn't mean the end of the target. But now, with the WMO's new predictions, even that small hope has slipped away. According to the new analysis, it is likely that the next five years clock in, on average, at over 1.5 degrees Celsius. Combined with the past couple of hot years — and increasing temperatures expected after 2030 — that means 2027 is likely to be the first year where that long-term average temperature is over the limit, Hausfather said. Since the 2015 Paris agreement, 1.5 degrees Celsius has been a kind of lodestar for the climate movement. Protesters have chanted 'Keep 1.5 alive' outside global climate meetings. Scientists have outlined how that level of warming will drive infectious diseases, destroy crops, and fuel weather disasters. Still, the goal was always a stretch. In the accord, nations agreed to hold temperatures 'well below' 2 degrees Celsius and pursue efforts to hold them to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But even at the time, some scientists and experts privately worried that — given the difficulty of transforming the energy system — the more ambitious target would prove impossible. 'There's tremendous inertia in the industrial system,' said David Victor, a professor of public policy at the University of California San Diego, who has questioned the feasibility of the goal since before the Paris agreement. 'It doesn't change quickly.' Advertisement A pumpjack dips its head to extract oil in a basin north of Helper, Utah. Rick Bowmer/Associated Press Although renewables have grown dramatically over the past decade, they still make up just about a third of the global energy mix. Even as wind, solar, and batteries grow on the grid, the world is also consuming more electricity than ever before. Missing the target will mark the end of a hopeful phase in the world's battle against climate change — and the beginning of a period of uncertainty about what comes next. At the same time, humanity will face mounting weather extremes, including deadly heat waves that compound in strength for each tenth of a degree of warming. It also places policymakers and negotiators who have tried to rally support for slashing planet-warming emissions in an uncomfortable situation. UN Secretary General António Guterres, for example, has claimed that the 1.5-degree goal is 'on life support' and 'will soon be dead.' At some point soon, nations will have to acknowledge that failure — and devise a new goal. 'You could imagine governments saying, 'Hey, 1.5 is not going to be feasible, but here's what we're going to do, and here's where we're going to tighten the efforts,'' said Victor. 'That's one approach. And another approach would just be to say give up.' Some countries and scientists have also put their faith behind a concept called 'overshoot' — where the world could pass 1.5 degrees Celsius, then later on remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to bring temperatures back down. But many researchers warn that if countries cannot even spend the money to build out renewables and batteries, removing CO2 from the sky could be a pipe dream. Advertisement 'I'm personally very skeptical about our willingness to spend tens of trillions of dollars on dealing with overshoot,' Hausfather said. Nations could redirect their attention to the Paris agreement's less ambitious goal — holding temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius of warming. That goal is more feasible, but at the moment still unlikely. The planet is currently on pace for something closer to 2.5 degrees Celsius. 'It's just the longer we wait, the harder it's going to be,' Hausfather said. 'After another decade of doing nothing, we're going to talk about the 2-degree target much like we talk about the 1.5-degree target.'
Hamilton Spectator
23-05-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Coalition urges Carney to drop nuclear from energy plan
A coalition of First Nations, physicians and environmental organizations is ramping up pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney to drop nuclear energy from his 'energy superpower' strategy, warning it comes with high costs, long delays and long-term risks. In an open letter , dozens of organizations urge the federal government to halt funding for nuclear development and instead prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and storage. The letter warns that new nuclear projects are likely to increase electricity costs while delaying meaningful climate action. 'We are concerned that you may be unduly influenced by the nuclear and fossil industry lobbies,' reads the letter. During the federal election campaign, Carney pledged to make Canada 'the world's leading energy superpower ,' focusing on clean and conventional energy. His platform promised faster project approvals and a national clean electricity grid, among other energy promises. The coalition sent their letter in an effort to ensure Carney does not invest more significantly in nuclear energy, as he prepares to set his government's agenda and ministers' mandates. While Carney's plan doesn't mention nuclear energy, he praised it during the first leaders' debate and referenced two companies in the sector he previously worked with at Brookfield Asset Management. Nuclear energy is frequently cited as a clean, reliable alternative to fossil fuels. Agencies from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the International Energy Agency expect nuclear power to have a role in the energy transition. Nuclear power has been part of Canada's electricity mix since the 1960s, with 22 reactors at five plants across three provinces now supplying about 15 per cent of the country's electricity . The federal government — through the Canada Infrastructure Bank — has committed $970 million in low-cost financing to Ontario's Darlington New Nuclear Project, which aims to build Canada's first grid-scale small modular reactor. The federal government also invested millions in Moltex Clean Energy , a New Brunswick-based company developing a technology called Waste to Stable Salt, which aims to recycle nuclear waste into new energy. Jean-Pierre Finet, spokesperson for le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie, one of the organizations that signed the open letter, said he worries about the long-term future of any nuclear plants built today without a plan for their waste. 'We object to our federal taxpayer dollars being spent on developing more nuclear reactors that could be abandoned in place, ultimately transforming communities into radioactively contaminated sites and nuclear waste dumps that will require more federal dollars to clean up,' Finet said. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and a longtime nuclear critic, says the federal government is backing the slowest and most expensive energy option on the table. 'In a climate emergency, you have to invest in things that are faster and cheaper,' Edwards said. 'Canada hasn't built new reactors in decades. There's no practical experience left, and what's being proposed now is largely speculative.' 'We're very concerned about a misappropriation of public money and investment in what we see as a losing strategy,' Edwards said, stressing that the coalition is not asking private companies to stop building plants — but rather asking the federal government to stop subsidizing them. Canada's electricity demand is expected to double — or even triple — by 2050 , driven by population growth, electrified transportation and industrial decarbonization. In Ontario, the Independent Electricity System Operator projects a 75 per cent increase in demand by mid-century. To meet this demand, the Ford government is heavily investing in nuclear power to meet Ontario's growing electricity demand, banking on small modular reactors and nuclear refurbishments as key pillars of its long-term energy strategy. But Edwards points to the Ford government's cancellation of over 750 renewable energy contracts in 2018 , and argues that those lost projects could have already been delivering clean, reliable power today, instead of relying on increasing nuclear energy. Much of the current controversy focuses on Ontario's Darlington New Nuclear Project, as growing skepticism around the cost of small modular reactors mirrors global concerns. In the US, two nuclear reactors in South Carolina were abandoned after $12.5 billion (CAD) had already been spent, triggering the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Nuclear — now owned by Canadian firms Brookfield and Cameco . Meanwhile, two completed Vogtle reactors in Georgia came in at $48 billion, more than double the original $19-billion estimate, making them among the most expensive infrastructure projects in US history. In the UK and Europe, new nuclear power project efforts are facing delays , budget overruns, or outright cancellations. Meanwhile, a report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates that electricity from new nuclear power will cost up to 3.6 times more than onshore wind, three times more than solar, and nearly twice as much as offshore wind. It argues that Ontario could meet its energy needs more cheaply and quickly by expanding renewable generation and grid connections with neighbouring provinces. Ontario Power Generation has pushed back against this criticism, saying the Darlington small modular reactor will reuse existing infrastructure, avoid land-use issues common to wind and solar, and help maintain grid stability with 24/7 baseload power. The company argues that renewables require large land areas and new transmission lines, and may face more complex supply chain risks. Still, some energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. 'Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,' said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. 'These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.' Winfield calls small modular reactors 'a distraction and likely a dead end,' warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production. Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer. 'There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,' Winfield added in an email.
National Observer
23-05-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Coalition urges Carney to drop nuclear from energy plan
A coalition of First Nations, physicians and environmental organizations is ramping up pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney to drop nuclear energy from his 'energy superpower' strategy, warning it comes with high costs, long delays and long-term risks. In an open letter, dozens of organizations urge the federal government to halt funding for nuclear development and instead prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and storage. The letter warns that new nuclear projects are likely to increase electricity costs while delaying meaningful climate action. 'We are concerned that you may be unduly influenced by the nuclear and fossil industry lobbies,' reads the letter. During the federal election campaign, Carney pledged to make Canada 'the world's leading energy superpower,' focusing on clean and conventional energy. His platform promised faster project approvals and a national clean electricity grid, among other energy promises. The coalition sent their letter in an effort to ensure Carney does not invest more significantly in nuclear energy, as he prepares to set his government's agenda and ministers' mandates. While Carney's plan doesn't mention nuclear energy, he praised it during the first leaders' debate and referenced two companies in the sector he previously worked with at Brookfield Asset Management. Nuclear energy is frequently cited as a clean, reliable alternative to fossil fuels. Agencies from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the International Energy Agency expect nuclear power to have a role in the energy transition. Nuclear power has been part of Canada's electricity mix since the 1960s, with 22 reactors at five plants across three provinces now supplying about 15 per cent of the country's electricity. In an open letter, dozens of organizations urge the federal government to halt funding for nuclear development and instead prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and storage. The federal government — through the Canada Infrastructure Bank — has committed $970 million in low-cost financing to Ontario's Darlington New Nuclear Project, which aims to build Canada's first grid-scale small modular reactor. The federal government also invested millions in Moltex Clean Energy, a New Brunswick-based company developing a technology called Waste to Stable Salt, which aims to recycle nuclear waste into new energy. Jean-Pierre Finet, spokesperson for le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie, one of the organizations that signed the open letter, said he worries about the long-term future of any nuclear plants built today without a plan for their waste. 'We object to our federal taxpayer dollars being spent on developing more nuclear reactors that could be abandoned in place, ultimately transforming communities into radioactively contaminated sites and nuclear waste dumps that will require more federal dollars to clean up,' Finet said. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and a longtime nuclear critic, says the federal government is backing the slowest and most expensive energy option on the table. 'In a climate emergency, you have to invest in things that are faster and cheaper,' Edwards said. 'Canada hasn't built new reactors in decades. There's no practical experience left, and what's being proposed now is largely speculative.' 'We're very concerned about a misappropriation of public money and investment in what we see as a losing strategy,' Edwards said, stressing that the coalition is not asking private companies to stop building plants — but rather asking the federal government to stop subsidizing them. Canada's electricity demand is expected to double — or even triple — by 2050, driven by population growth, electrified transportation and industrial decarbonization. In Ontario, the Independent Electricity System Operator projects a 75 per cent increase in demand by mid-century. To meet this demand, the Ford government is heavily investing in nuclear power to meet Ontario's growing electricity demand, banking on small modular reactors and nuclear refurbishments as key pillars of its long-term energy strategy. But Edwards points to the Ford government's cancellation of over 750 renewable energy contracts in 2018, and argues that those lost projects could have already been delivering clean, reliable power today, instead of relying on increasing nuclear energy. International concerns echo at home Much of the current controversy focuses on Ontario's Darlington New Nuclear Project, as growing skepticism around the cost of small modular reactors mirrors global concerns. In the US, two nuclear reactors in South Carolina were abandoned after $12.5 billion (CAD) had already been spent, triggering the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Nuclear — now owned by Canadian firms Brookfield and Cameco. Meanwhile, two completed Vogtle reactors in Georgia came in at $48 billion, more than double the original $19-billion estimate, making them among the most expensive infrastructure projects in US history. In the UK and Europe, new nuclear power project efforts are facing delays, budget overruns, or outright cancellations. Meanwhile, a report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates that electricity from new nuclear power will cost up to 3.6 times more than onshore wind, three times more than solar, and nearly twice as much as offshore wind. It argues that Ontario could meet its energy needs more cheaply and quickly by expanding renewable generation and grid connections with neighbouring provinces. Ontario Power Generation has pushed back against this criticism, saying the Darlington small modular reactor will reuse existing infrastructure, avoid land-use issues common to wind and solar, and help maintain grid stability with 24/7 baseload power. The company argues that renewables require large land areas and new transmission lines, and may face more complex supply chain risks. Still, some energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. 'Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,' said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. 'These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.' Winfield calls small modular reactors 'a distraction and likely a dead end,' warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production. Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer. 'There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,' Winfield added in an email.
