Race Against The Clock

 

A study revealed that 77 percent of the major cities in the world will experience drastic changes in climate conditions by 2050. I won’t be around by then but my grandchildren will be around. So this is important to me. 

Crowther Lab, a research group based in Switzerland studied the impact on 250 major cities’ temperature if the world’s temperature reaches 2 degree Celsius. The study is the first global analysis of the likely changes in climate conditions in major cities due to global warming.

The researchers found out that a fifth of the world’s cities will see unprecedented climate changes including intense dry and rainy seasons. These would include Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Madrid, Seattle, London, and Moscow to name a few.

Just how drastic will the changes be? The study says summers and winters in Europe will be warmer with 3.5 degree Celsius to 4.7 degree Celsius average increases. Another way of imagining it is by measuring the temperature change, which is by thinking that a city would shift by 620 miles further south.

Naturally, the cities farthest away from the equator will experience the most changes in the average temperature. But those near the equator or in the tropics such as Kuala Lumpur, Singapore and Jakarta will feel the strongest impacts of climate change. 

These changes don’t bode well for major cities says Jean Francis-Bastin, the lead author of the report. “It is a change in climate conditions that is likely to increase the risk of flooding and extreme drought,” said Francis-Bastin. 

The Philippines and not just Manila will be greatly affected by climate change, too.

The Global Peace Index 2019, released last June showed that the Philippines is the country most susceptible to hazards due to climate change.

The study revealed that 47 percent of our country’s population is located in areas highly exposed to climate hazards such as tropical cyclones, tsunami, floods, and drought.

Our Southeast Asia neighbors such as Bangladesh, Myanmar, Indonesia also made it to the list of the countries being at the highest risk because of climate change.

Manila also ranked seventh with most risk to a single hazard while our neighbor, Vietnam landed the first spot for this category.

Indeed, the Philippines and the rest of the world are constantly reminded to take serious efforts in limiting the effects of climate change. And we need to act fast as stressed by Francis-Bastin: “We definitely and very quickly need to change the way we are living on the planet. Otherwise, we are just going to have more and more droughts, flooding and extreme events.”.

Fortunately, nations responded to these warnings as early as 2015 by committing to limit global warming to just 1.5 c in the 2015 Paris Climate Change accord. But how is the world faring?

Unfortunately, the world’s temperature continues to increase. In 2018, the world recorded its fourth warmest year on record. 

But this is not to say that nations are not making any progress at all in decarbonizing the world. On the contrary, data show increases in investments in renewable energy and rapid developments in the use of clean power around the world. 

For example, the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) showed that 2018 was the fifth consecutive year that investments in renewable energy exceeded the $300 billion mark.

Similarly, the Business Renewables Center of Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) also showed that in 2018, the United States renewables market has almost doubled its figure of corporate off-site deals since 2015

As most know, shifting to renewable power is one of the best ways to help limit the effects of climate change. But are these investments and developments enough? 

Apparently not, says the United Nations Development Goals report 2019 after tagging climate change as “the defining issue of our time and the greatest challenge to sustainable development.”

The UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Liu Zhenmin, in his introduction to the report stressed that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the most crucial task to mitigate the effects of climate change. He noted that “As we are already seeing, the compounded effects will be catastrophic and irreversible: increasing ocean acidification, coastal erosion, extreme weather conditions, the frequency and severity of natural disasters, continuing land degradation, loss of vital species and the collapse of ecosystems.”

Unfortunately, current scenarios and actions to help the environment are not enough. The world may be seeing an increase in renewable investments but the  UN report emphasized that investments in fossil fuels still outpaced the $781billion recorded in 2016 as the figure is significantly higher than the  $332.1 billion investments in clean power in 2018.

Indeed, we are racing against time if we want to save our environment for the future generations. Drastic actions must be taken. The UN report emphasized it best by saying “Unprecedented changes in all aspects of society will be required to avoid the worst effects of climate change.”

References:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-kuala-lumpur-unprecedented-climate-change-2050-11710274

https://solarindustrymag.com/report-2018-a-record-breaking-year-for-corporate-renewable-energy-deals/

https://about.bnef.com/blog/clean-energy-investment-exceeded-300-billion-2018

https://news.abs-cbn.com/spotlight/06/15/19/country-most-threatened-by-climate-change-study-says-its-philippines

A Gloomy Warning

What would you do if the temperature becomes too hot that you must stay every single day indoors?

Sounds like doom to me, right?

Unfortunately for us, this a possible scenario if we keep up with the business-as-usual in dealing with climate change. Or at least that’s what a climate change expert says.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican and the Director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)  warned us that the Philippines and its neighbors in Southeast Asia could suffer from extreme temperatures daily if countries continue with the present high emission levels.

The Nobel Prize Winner stressed that “All of the tropics will develop conditions that physiologically, humans cannot live outside anymore.”

Schellnhuber was in the country to present the study “A Region at Risk: The Human Dimensions of Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific.” He said that based on modeling and simulation studies from the report, temperatures would keep increasing by 1.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2030, and up to 2.7 degrees by 2050. By 2070, temperatures could be up to 4 degrees.

According to Schellnhuber, we could “see a complete shift in living conditions,” if people fail to address climate change. He further stressed that we would be facing extreme summer heat, an unusual weather condition, which the Philippines only experience once in every 740 years.

Nations must do everything they can to avoid such extremes, he warns. If not, Schellnhuber pointed out, that millions of people will be forced to flee their homes. “You would actually have to give up the Philippines altogether….Unless you put the entire population into a shopping mall, which would be a very big mall, and by the way, needs a lot of fossil energy to keep air-conditioned, and that would exacerbate global warming, so it is certainly not a solution.”

Gloomy, indeed.

Schellnhuber’s words reminded me of the Pope’s encyclical on climate change two years ago. Pope Francis made strong calls to act quickly on the issue of climate change. “We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now.”

Unfortunately, two years after the powerful message of the Pope, little has been done locally to work on reducing our carbon footprint if we are to talk about renewable energy development.

The BMI Research of the Fitch Group recently released its study noting that there will be more coal-fired power plants in the next 10 years. “Growth in the Philippines power infrastructure sector over the next 10 years will be driven by investment in coal-fired generating capacity as companies and the government build a slew of new power plants to support growing electricity demand.”

The report noted that 90 percent of roughly 7,300 megawatts (MW) power plant projects in the pipeline are coal-fired ones.

So, we are in the business-as-usual scenario, still relying heavily on coal for our energy needs.

We certainly have failed to heed the Pope’s call. I can only pray and hope that Schellnhuber’s warning below will not be ignored, too.

Reference:

http://www.interaksyon.com/expert-warns-with-no-cap-on-greenhouse-gas-emissions-going-outdoors-will-be-deadly-by-2100/

More Reasons to Shift: Health and Death Print

Recently, the Senate voted to concur the ratification of the Paris Climate deal after President Rody Duterte signed the ‘Instrument of Accession,’ signifying the Philippines’ commitment to Paris Agreement.

To recall, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change seeks to reduce carbon emission and was signed by 194 countries. Our country has pledged to cut 70% of its carbon emissions by 2030 with the help of the international community.

The Senate’s concurrence signifies that we are now legally bound to the agreement. This means it is time for us to double our efforts in reducing our carbon emissions.  One way of doing that is to add more renewable energy in our energy mix.

This shift has sound economic reasons, and more importantly, it has even more profound rationale: its impact on the health of our people.

Data from the Department of Energy reveals that we are still reliant on oil and coal for our energy needs. In 2014, we sourced our power from imported coal and oil by as much as 13.9% and 29.8%, respectively. The figures are even higher for 2015 as imported oil and coal accounted for 14.92% and oil was 32.79% of our energy mix.

Aside from the monetary consequences relying heavily on imported products, reliance on coal and oil for our energy needs has an impact on health of our countrymen, and therefore death rates. Coal, for one, has the largest carbon footprint among all energy types. One kilowatt-hour (kWh) of power produced from coal emits roughly 900 grams of carbon dioxide. And this has health consequences.

Data shows that shifting to renewable energy will pave the way for lesser carbon emissions. Just recently, a study revealed that in the United Kingdom, carbon emissions decreased by 5.8 percent in 2016 compared to previous year as the country’s use of coal dropped by 52% for the same period.

Aside from having a large carbon footprint, experts are now talking about another measure: “death print.”.  Both oil and coal have large death prints. According to James Conca, an energy expert, and geochemist, “death print is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kilowatt hour (kWh) produced”.

Conca explains that coal, oil, and biomass are carbon particulates that result from burning and cause respiratory problems. Our internal organs, particularly the lungs, don’t respond well to these particulates.  Using them has the same result as inhaling cigarette smoke: black lungs.

Just how bad are the death prints of coal and oil?

Conca’s research shows that on global average, the mortality rate of coal –computed as death divided by trillion kWh of use–is 100, 000 when 50% of energy needs are sourced from coal.  It’s even worse in China, which sources 75% of electricity from coal as its mortality rate is 170,000.  The US sources 44% from coal, and its coal’s mortality rate is 10,000. Conca says that China has unfortunately ramped up the building of coal in the last decade with plants that usually do not have exhaust scrubbers thus the higher death print.

Oil has a large death print, too, as its mortality rate is 36,000 for every 8% energy it supplies.

On the other hand, solar rooftop and wind power, with each contributing roughly one percent to the global energy supply, has mortality rates of 440 and 150, respectively.

In the United States, Practice Greenhealth points out that a typical 200-bed hospital that uses coal-powered energy is responsible for $107,000 a year in direct healthcare costs associated with asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, and other health problems. The organization is the leading membership and networking organization in the US for organizations in the healthcare community that have made a commitment to sustainable, and environmentally preferable practices.

Clearly, these numbers point that adding more renewable energy to the mix will both save the environment, as well as lives.

Again, as I have been saying in the past, I do not have problems with coal plants per se. In fact, I have built some of them during my days with the NAPOCOR. But I also believe in responding to the needs of our time. And studies suggest that the world needs more clean energy if we are to save the world for the succeeding generations.

References:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/18/world/2016-hottest-year/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#16e2ea1b709b\

https://qz.com/925294/carbon-emissions-in-the-uk-have-fallen-to-a-120-year-low/

http://www.rappler.com/nation/162865-duterte-signs-paris-agreement-climate-change

http://www.rappler.com/nation/162865-duterte-signs-paris-agreement-climate-change

https://practicegreenhealth.org/topics/leaner-energy