Friday, 30 October 2015

UN: Climate plans must go further to prevent dangerous warming

UN: Climate plans must go further to prevent dangerous warming

chimneysImage copyrightThinkstock
Image captionCarbon emissions will be "significantly dented" according to the UN, if all the plans are put into action
The UN has released its assessment of national plans to limit climate change, submitted by 146 countries.
Officials say the submissions, in their current form, won't keep global temperatures from rising by more than the 2C danger threshold.
The global total of carbon emissions will continue to grow, although more slowly than over the past two decades.
However the UN report says the plans are a major step forward and the 2C goal is still "within reach".
The UN believes that these national climate plans, called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) will form the cornerstone of a binding, global treaty on climate change that will be agreed at a conference in Paris in December.
According to the UN, the submissions now cover around 86% of global emissions: about four times the amount covered by the Kyoto Protocol, the world's first carbon cutting treaty.
Their assessment is decidedly upbeat about the plans, despite acknowledging that taken together they point to rises in global temperatures of 2.7C above the pre-industrial level.
Scientists have determined that if temperature rises exceed 2C, this will lead to significant and dangerous climate impacts, which will especially hit the world's poor.
UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said the plans were an excellent first step: "The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7C by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs."
Observers say the 2.7C figure is a substantial improvement on 3.1C, which was the estimate when the plans were assessed last December.

UN climate conference 30 Nov - 11 Dec 2015

Climate Change
COP 21 - the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties - will see more than 190 nations gather in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the threat of dangerous warming due to human activities.
Explained: What is climate change?
In video: Why does the Paris conference matter?
Analysis: Latest from BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath
More: BBC News climate change special report

A key finding of the UN reports is that the INDCs will bring down per capita emissions by 9% by 2030.
But while the rate of growth in CO2 may be declining, the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere will continue to grow significantly over the next 15 years.
Compared to 2010 levels, the UN says that overall emissions could be up to 22% higher in 2030. The assessment says that, as they stand, the plans won't achieve the goal of peaking global emissions and then reducing them rapidly.
Another concern is that 25% of the total range of emissions reductions are conditional upon financial support from richer countries.
Despite these issues, the fact that so many countries, rich and poor, have submitted plans to cut carbon is giving environmental campaigners great hope that a new deal is imminent.
"The vast majority of the INDCs this time around, 105 of them, contain concrete greenhouse gas mitigation targets. That's in contrast to 27 for Copenhagen," said Taryn Fransen from the World Resources Institute, referring to the failed conference in the Danish capital in 2009.
"You have quite a few more countries that are now specifying absolute decreases in emissions levels. You have countries like China, South Africa and Singapore talking about peaking emissions through a hard cap.
"Even much smaller countries like Ethiopia, Bhutan and Costa Rica are identifying absolute limits on the quantity of emissions. I think that signals a real evolution."
The challenge for the UN is now to take these intentions and turn them into a coherent and legally binding deal when heads of government and negotiators meet in Paris in a month.

Analysis: David Shukman - BBC Science Editor
ChristianaImage copyrightGetty Images
Image captionUN climate chief Christiana Figueres remains upbeat that a strong deal can be achieved in Paris
An "unprecedented engagement", says Christiana Figueres, the head of the UN's climate change negotiations. And if one thinks back to the irritable, dysfunctional days of the Copenhagen summit in 2009, the last big push for an international response to global warming, there has been a remarkable turnaround.
In the aftermath of that failed gathering, it seemed almost inconceivable that within a matter of years new momentum would be returned to what has generally been a faltering process.
It's worth bearing in mind that the national pledges to take action are of course entirely voluntary.
When the idea of individual submissions was first agreed, it was perfectly possible that many, if not most, of the world's 196 countries would choose to turn a blind eye, or plead some other pressing distraction, or argue that cutting greenhouse gases is a task to be faced by others.
Instead, an impressive 86% of global emissions are covered if you add up the total of all the different pledges.
Will it ultimately make any difference?
The numbers don't add up to what the scientists say is needed to avoid the worst of global warming. Emissions will still keep rising, albeit at a slower pace.
And the promises are just that - promises. Who knows how many governments will turn them into law and take them seriously? How many will refuse to act until the right finance is offered?
The outcome of all this is uncertain and much depends on the exact deal thrashed out at the approaching summit in Paris.
Copenhagen may well haunt the talks. But compared to where this process stood six years ago, there's a world of difference.

Even though the plans don't add up to enough of a cut to avoid a 2C rise, campaigners believe that a strong review mechanism can - and must - be put in place by the Paris agreement.
"Paris will not be the end of the world's efforts to tackle climate change, but it might be the end of the beginning," said Mohammed Adow from Christian Aid.
"Going forward we will need a five-year review mechanism that will track how countries are doing and push them to do more as technology advances and more finance becomes available."
Getting all that into a Paris deal won't be easy. In fact the emissions pledges are the most straightforward aspect.
In fact, the negotiators now have a draft document that runs to 50 dense pages.
In the words of one delegate at a recent negotiating session, even the world's best paid lawyer would be hard pressed to understand it.
Follow Matt on Twitter: @mattmcgrathbbc

Thursday, 29 October 2015

EU car emissions: Tough new tests backed

EU car emissions: Tough new tests backed

  • 28 October 2015
  •  
  • From the sectionEurope
Woman cycling past car in Berlin, file pictureImage copyrightGetty Images
Image captionThe new rules aim to curb emissions that are harmful to public health
The European Union has adopted tougher emissions tests for new models of cars, which it says will better reflect ordinary driving conditions.
Many cars on the road emit up to four times more pollutants than the technical limit.The new rules aim to start reducing this margin from 2017.
But critics say the tests are not strict enough, as car makers will still be allowed to exceed emissions limits.
The move comes as car giant Volkswagen faces a scandal over falsifying tests.
The German manufacturer has recalled millions of cars after the discovery of engine software that could cheat diesel emissions tests.
Diesel vehicles are a major source of nitrogen dioxide, which has been linked to respiratory diseases and premature death.

'Robust testing'

Under the rules approved on Wednesday by the EU's executive body, the European Commission, new car models sold after 1 September 2017 will have to pass Real Driving Emissions (RDE) tests.
RDE tests are intended to better reflect ordinary driving conditions.
Car makers can currently legally cut corners on emissions tests by using so-called "golden vehicles", which are equipped to do well in tests.
As a result, emissions during driving can currently exceed the technical limit by up to 400%.
VW production lineImage copyrightGetty Images
Image captionGerman manufacturer Volkswagen has been rocked by an emissions scandal
New car models sold after September 2017 will not be allowed to exceed nitrogen oxide emission levels by more than twice the technical limit.
Car makers will have until 2019 to limit the emissions on all new vehicles to that level.
By 2020, the emissions from all new models must not be greater than 1.5 times the technical limit. The same rule will apply to all new vehicle from 2021.
"The EU is the first and only region in the world to mandate these robust testing methods," EU Commissioner Elzbieta Bienkowska said.
But the EU has been criticised for not imposing strict enough tests, and for giving car makers too much time to cut emissions.
"Allowing car manufacturers to completely disregard car standards for another five years is terrible news for our environment and for consumer trust in European car brands," said Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, European Parliament member for the liberal ALDE group, in comments quoted by the Associated Press news agency.

Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Tampon tax

Tampon tax' issue to be raised with the European Commission

'Tampon tax' issue to be raised with the European Commission

  • ectio
Sanitary products in the supermarketImage copyrightALAMY
The issue of the so-called "tampon tax" on sanitary products will be raised with the European Commission, a UK Treasury minister has said.
David Gauke said the government sympathised with efforts to force a negotiation with the EU for a reduction in the 5% VAT rate on sanitary items.
But he said the UK was unable to apply a zero rating under EU law.
MPs rejected the Finance Bill amendment, which would have forced a negotiation, by 305 to 287 votes.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) says the VAT rate charged on the items is the lowest allowed under EU law.
The government said any change would require a European Commission proposal and the unanimous agreement of all 28 member states.
Mr Gauke, the financial secretary to the Treasury, said: "This debate illustrates there is very considerable cross-party support for the UK to abolish VAT on sanitary products.
"To that end… I will raise this issue with the European Commission and other member states setting out our views that it should be possible for member states to apply a zero-rate to sanitary products."
Labour cut the rate when it was in government from the then-standard rate of 17.5% - imposed in the 1970s - to the lower rate of 5%, but was prevented from going any lower by the European rules.
A petition calling for a change in the law has more than 250,000 signatures.

'Absurd'

Labour MP Paula Sherriff's amendment, backed by shadow chancellor John McDonnell, would have required Chancellor George Osborne to publish, within three months, a strategy for negotiating an exemption with EU institutions.
One of the Conservatives supporting the motion, Bernard Jenkin, said the situation was "an example of where the EU has taken over jurisdiction over our tax where it should not have".
SNP MP Alison Thewliss added: "It is absurd that while men's razors, children's nappies and even products like Jaffa Cakes, exotic meats and edible cake decorations are free from VAT, women are still having to pay additional costs on what is already an expensive yet vital product."
A Treasury spokesman said: "The UK has set the VAT on sanitary products at the minimum rate permissible under EU rules."
Asked about the calls for a zero VAT rate, the prime minister's spokeswoman said: "What is being proposed is not something that being looked at we think is achievable."

The European parliament will take a key vote on Tuesday on rules affecting how internet traffic is managed.

EU parliament set to vote on net neutrality rules

The European Parliament buildingImage copyrightGetty Images
The European parliament will take a key vote on Tuesday on rules affecting how internet traffic is managed.
MEPs are considering a new set of rules for telecoms companies inside the EU.
The plan could have major implications for net neutrality, where traffic is not slowed down or priced differently because of its content or origin.
Some people fear the plan may lead to such restrictions but others argue that first it would have to be turned into specific regulations.
Some tech companies, campaign groups and the inventor of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee have all called for the adoption of amendments to the rules, which they believe would better safeguard the principles of net neutrality.
However, this would mean rejecting the plan in a form to which EU governments have already agreed.
Another part of the legislation, which would abolish mobile roaming charges within the EU, is popular with MEPs, so enthusiasm for rejecting it in its current form and further delaying this move is low, according to some analysts.
What is net neutrality?
The idea that data should be ferried from place to place as quickly as possible, regardless of what it is, is how most people assume the internet works.
That's the essence of net neutrality.
However, it's possible to decide to prioritise certain types of data over others - perhaps, for example, by charging the producers of such data a fee to make sure their content gets delivered promptly.
For big video streaming sites, the prospect is worrying. They could find themselves coughing up lots of money in fees simply to give their users the same experience as before.
Some argue, however, that such fees are fair since it costs internet service providers a lot of money to keep providing such content, no matter how popular the streaming sites become.
An overall majority of MEPs will be required for the amendments to passImage copyrightGetty Images
Image captionAn overall majority of MEPs will be required for the amendments to pass
What are MEPs voting on?
The plan that members are actually voting on is a proposed set of amendments to the rules governing telecoms companies that work inside the EU.
If they decide not to adopt the amendments, that will count as acceptance of the proposal in its current form.
The amendments make an attempt to highlight the significance of net neutrality principles, such as applying the same scrutiny across networks regardless of their market share.
But telecoms law expert Chris Marsden at the University of Sussex told the BBC there is reluctance within the parliament to do this because it could delay and possibly jeopardise other parts of the rules which aim to abolish EU roaming charges.
"If the parliament votes for [the amendments] and they amend the text that the governments had all agreed to - then the whole thing would actually fail [if the Council of Ministers also rejects the plan]," he explained. In that case, a further reading of the rules would have to be arranged.
How could the rules affect internet use?
Part of the problem with the rules in their current form, argued Joe McNamee of theSave the Internet campaign, is that they are ambiguous.
"As the text currently stands there is no indication as to how much abuse of dominance would be permissible under this arrangement," he told the BBC.
The sort of scenarios that could impact internet use include the creation of "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" - traffic prioritised depending on fees paid by content providers - or the creation of "zero ratings" in which some services may be accessed without using up any of the internet user's data quota.
In Belgium, for example, some mobile phone companies currently allow unlimited access to Twitter and Facebook while all other data usage is part of a monthly plan. In a few countries such as the Netherlands, such practices are not allowed.
However, regulators would have to decide on the specifics of what would and would not be allowed before any EU-wide changes could be enforced.
Proponents of net neutrality say it's the best way to enable free and open competition on the webImage copyrightGetty Images
Image captionProponents of net neutrality say it's the best way to enable free and open competition on the web
Who is arguing that the amendments be adopted?
Besides a host of net neutrality campaigners, inventor of the world wide web Sir Tim Berners-Lee has added his voice to those supporting the amendments.
"If adopted as currently written, these rules will threaten innovation, free speech and privacy, and compromise Europe's ability to lead in the digital economy," he wrote in a blog.
Meanwhile a string of tech companies have signed a letter to the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, asking MEPs to adopt the amendments.
The firms include Netflix, Tumblr, Vimeo, Kickstarter and Reddit.
"I was contacted by a number of start-ups and investors because they were deeply concerned about the impact of the European Parliament's network neutrality proposals on start-up innovation in Europe," Stanford professor Barbara van Schewick, who helped pen the letter, told the BBC.
Is it likely the amendments will pass?
In order for the amendments to be adopted, they would have to achieve an overall majority of MEPs - 376 out of 751 members.
Dr Marsden believes this is unlikely but Dr van Schewick said she believed there was some growing momentum within the parliament on incorporating the changes.
Tom Wheeler, chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, has overseen a long-running debate net neutralityImage copyrightGetty Images
Image captionTom Wheeler, chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, has overseen a long-running debate on net neutrality
Do other countries have net neutrality?
Interestingly, three countries within the EU - Netherlands, Slovenia and Finland - already have a range of net neutrality rules enshrined in law.
These laws might have to be altered depending on how any new, EU-wide rules are interpreted by regulators later.
Elsewhere, net neutrality has received some regulatory protection in the United States after a vote in February this year placed new restrictions on what deals could be sought by internet firms with content providers.
But in other countries, such as India, "zero rating" is allowed.
"It's a fragmented picture across the board," said Dr Marsden.
"It's an extremely difficult area and there are probably no absolutely right answers."