cli

BitTorrent Debuts P2P-Powered Social One-Click Hosting

BitTorrent’s new Project Chrysalis client now makes it possible to share files of unlimited size with your friends even when you’re not online. The company is caching files and using a revamped UI to make the facilitation of BitTorrent downloads much easier than before. Continue reading on NewTeeVee.


cli

AT#699 - Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro

Hear about climbing Mount Kilimanjaro as the Amateur Traveler talks to Kylie Chenn from Acanela Expeditions about what you should know about climbing the tallest mountain in Africa. 




cli

Sport24.co.za | Cycling's Vuelta a Espana cuts Portugal from itinerary

The Vuelta a Espana organisers have confirmed that a race already rescheduled and shortened would also now cut its foray into neighbouring Portugal from the 2020 itinerary.





cli

Signs of Slowing Unemployment; U.S. Jobless Claims Decline for Four Weeks in a Row

Signs of Slowing Unemployment

Although millions of people lost their jobs because of the coronavirus, a surge of companies is hiring additional employees due to increased demands.




cli

Five of the Best B2B Content Marketing Trends That Are Proven Effective To Gain New Clients

Digital marketing is fast-paced with trends and new updates to existing systems continuously popping out. That’s why it is important to stay up-to-date with the latest strategies that can be beneficial in reaching new audiences. Keeping up to date with the marketing trends will also help a business stay ahead of their competition. The best […]

The post Five of the Best B2B Content Marketing Trends That Are Proven Effective To Gain New Clients appeared first on Dumb Little Man.




cli

Watch preview clips

Part of the They've got the look promo for the BBC UK Homepage




cli

To Advance Trade and Climate Goals, ‘Global Britain’ Must Link Them

19 March 2020

Carolyn Deere Birkbeck

Associate Fellow, Global Economy and Finance Programme, and Hoffmann Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy

Dr Emily Jones

Associate Professor, Blavatnik School of Government

Dr Thomas Hale

Associate Professor, Blavatnik School of Government
COVID-19 is a sharp reminder of why trade policy matters. As the UK works to forge new trade deals, it must align its trade policy agenda with its climate ambition.

2020-03-19-Boris-Johnson-COP26.jpg

Boris Johnson at the launch of the UK-hosted COP26 UN Climate Summit at the Science Museum, London on February 4, 2020. Photo by Jeremy Selwyn - WPA Pool/Getty Images.

COVID-19 is a sharp reminder of why trade and climate policy matters. How can governments maintain access to critical goods and services, and ensure global supply chains function in times of crisis?

The timing of many trade negotiations is now increasingly uncertain, as are the UK’s plans to host COP26 in November. Policy work continues, however, and the EU has released its draft negotiating text for the new UK-EU trade deal, which includes a sub-chapter specifically devoted to climate. 

This is a timely reminder both of the pressing need for the UK to integrate its trade and climate policymaking and to use the current crisis-induced breathing space in international negotiations - however limited - to catch up on both strategy and priorities on this critical policy intersection.

The UK government has moved fast to reset its external trade relations post-Brexit. In the past month it formally launched bilateral negotiations with the EU and took up a seat at the World Trade Organization (WTO) as an independent member. Until the COVID-19 crisis hit, negotiations were also poised to start with the US.

The UK is also in the climate spotlight as host of COP26, the most important international climate negotiation since Paris in 2015, which presents a vital opportunity for the government to show leadership by aligning its trade agenda with its climate and sustainability commitments in bold new ways.

Not just an empty aspiration

This would send a signal that ‘Global Britain’ is not just an empty aspiration, but a concrete commitment to lead.

Not only is concerted action on the climate crisis a central priority for UK citizens, a growing and increasingly vocal group of UK businesses committed to decarbonization are calling on the government to secure a more transparent and predictable international market place that supports climate action by business.

With COP26, the UK has a unique responsibility to push governments to ratchet up ambition in the national contributions to climate action – and to promote coherence between climate ambition and wider economic policymaking, including on trade. If Britain really wants to lead, here are some concrete actions it should take.

At the national level, the UK can pioneer new ways to put environmental sustainability – and climate action in particular - at the heart of its trade agenda. Achieving the government’s ambitious Clean Growth Strategy - which seeks to make the UK the global leader in a range of industries including electric cars and offshore wind – should be a central objective of UK trade policy.

The UK should re-orient trade policy frameworks to incentivize the shift toward a more circular and net zero global economy. And all elements of UK trade policy could be assessed against environmental objectives - for example, their contribution to phasing out fossil fuels, helping to reverse overexploitation of natural resources, and support for sustainable agriculture and biodiversity.

In its bilateral and regional trade negotiations, the UK can and should advance its environment, climate and trade goals in tandem, and implementation of the Paris Agreement must be a core objective of the UK trade strategy.

A core issue for the UK is how to ensure that efforts to decarbonise the economy are not undercut by imports from high-carbon producers. Here, a ‘border carbon adjustment (BCA)’ - effectively a tax on the climate pollution of imports - would support UK climate goals. The EU draft negotiating text released yesterday put the issue of BCAs front and centre, making crystal clear that the intersection of climate, environment and trade policy goals will be a central issue for UK-EU trade negotiations.

Even with the United States, a trade deal can and should still be seized as a way to incentivize the shift toward a net zero and more circular economy. At the multilateral level, as a new independent WTO member, the UK has an opportunity to help build a forward-looking climate and trade agenda.

The UK could help foster dialogue, research and action on a cluster of ‘climate and trade’ issues that warrant more focused attention at the WTO. These include the design of carbon pricing policies at the border that are transparent, fair and support a just transition; proposals for a climate waiver for WTO rules; and identification of ways multilateral trade cooperation could promote a zero carbon and more circular global economy.  

To help nudge multilateral discussion along, the UK could also ask to join a critical ‘path finder’ effort by six governments, led by New Zealand, to pursue an agreement on climate change, trade and sustainability (ACCTS). This group aims to find ways forward on three central trade and climate issues: removing fossil fuel subsidies, climate-related labelling, and promoting trade in climate-friendly goods and services.

At present, the complex challenges at the intersection of climate, trade and development policy are too often used to defer or side-step issues deemed ‘too hard’ or ‘too sensitive’ to tackle. The UK could help here by working to ensure multilateral climate and trade initiatives share adjustment burdens, recognise the historical responsibility of developed countries, and do not unfairly disadvantage developing countries - especially the least developed.

Many developing countries are keen to promote climate-friendly exports as part of wider export diversification strategies  and want to reap greater returns from greener global value chains. Further, small island states and least-developed countries – many of which are Commonwealth members – that are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters, need support to adapt in the face of trade shocks and to build climate-resilient, trade-related infrastructure and export sectors.

As an immediate next step, the UK should actively support the growing number of WTO members in favour of a WTO Ministerial Statement on environmental sustainability and trade. It should work with its key trading partners in the Commonwealth and beyond to ensure the agenda is inclusive, supports achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and helps developing countries benefit from a more environmentally sustainable global economy.

As the UK prepares to host COP26, negotiates deals with the EU and US, and prepares for its first WTO Ministerial meeting as an independent member, it must show it can lead the way nationally, bilaterally, and multilaterally. And to ensure the government acts, greater engagement from the UK’s business, civil society and research sectors is critical – we need all hands on deck to forge and promote concrete proposals for aligning UK trade policy with the climate ambition our world needs.




cli

The hibernating 100S complex is a target of ribosome-recycling factor and elongation factor G in Staphylococcus aureus [Protein Synthesis and Degradation]

The formation of translationally inactive 70S dimers (called 100S ribosomes) by hibernation-promoting factor is a widespread survival strategy among bacteria. Ribosome dimerization is thought to be reversible, with the dissociation of the 100S complexes enabling ribosome recycling for participation in new rounds of translation. The precise pathway of 100S ribosome recycling has been unclear. We previously found that the heat-shock GTPase HflX in the human pathogen Staphylococcus aureus is a minor disassembly factor. Cells lacking hflX do not accumulate 100S ribosomes unless they are subjected to heat exposure, suggesting the existence of an alternative pathway during nonstressed conditions. Here, we provide biochemical and genetic evidence that two essential translation factors, ribosome-recycling factor (RRF) and GTPase elongation factor G (EF-G), synergistically split 100S ribosomes in a GTP-dependent but tRNA translocation-independent manner. We found that although HflX and the RRF/EF-G pair are functionally interchangeable, HflX is expressed at low levels and is dispensable under normal growth conditions. The bacterial RRF/EF-G pair was previously known to target only the post-termination 70S complexes; our results reveal a new role in the reversal of ribosome hibernation that is intimately linked to bacterial pathogenesis, persister formation, stress responses, and ribosome integrity.




cli

Reducing meat consumption critical to achieving global climate goal

18 November 2015

20151124DietClimateChange.jpg

Grand Central Market in Los Angeles, California, October 2015. Photo: Getty Images.

In the week before governments assemble in Paris to agree a global climate deal, a new report from Chatham House shows that a worldwide shift to healthier diets could help close the gap between current emissions reduction plans and what is needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

Pledges from countries attending the 21st UNFCCC Conference of the Parties put the world on track for around 3 degrees of warming by 2100, leaving governments with much more still to do. Changing diets to healthy levels of meat consumption could generate a quarter of the remaining emission reductions needed to keep warming below the ‘danger level’ of 2 degrees Celsius – the main goal of the climate negotiations.

Changing Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption by Laura Wellesley, Catherine Happer and Antony Froggatt argues that, ultimately, dietary change is fundamental to achieving the 2 degrees goal. The livestock sector is already responsible for 15 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Unless strong demand growth for meat is curtailed, livestock sector emissions will increase to the point where dangerous climate change is unavoidable.

Dietary change would also have major health benefits. Global per capita meat consumption is already above healthy levels, and double the recommended amount in industrialized countries. Too much red and processed meat is associated with an increased risk of non-communicable diseases, in particular cancer, as found most recently by the World Health Organization.

'Reducing meat consumption is a real win-win for health and for the climate,' says report author Laura Wellesley. 'As governments look for strategies to close the Paris emissions gap quickly and cheaply, dietary change should be high on the list.'

However, the report finds that governments are ignoring the opportunity. Reducing meat consumption does not feature in a single national emissions reduction plan submitted in advance of the Paris meeting. Governments are afraid to interfere in lifestyle choices for fear of public backlash.

But new research undertaken for the report, including an innovative public survey in 12 countries and focus groups in Brazil, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States shows that government fears are exaggerated. Once aware of the link between meat and climate change, consumers accept the need for government action. Even unpopular interventions to make meat more expensive, for example through a carbon tax, would face diminishing resistance as publics come to understand the rationale behind intervention.

To build support for government action, the report recommends initiatives to raise public awareness of the climate and health impacts of excessive meat consumption. Governments should pursue comprehensive strategies to shift diets, including policies on labelling, public procurement, regulation and pricing.

'Raising awareness about the health and environmental impacts of meat is an important first step, but on its own it will not lead to significant behaviour change. Governments must do more to influence diets,' added Wellesley.

Editor's notes

Read Changing Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption by Laura Wellesley, Catherine Happer and Antony Froggatt.

This report is embargoed until 00:01 GMT on Tuesday 24 November.         

To arrange an interview with the authors please contact the press office.

This research project was carried out in conjunction with Glasgow University Media Group.  

Further research findings:

  • Meat consumption has already reached excessive levels in many Western countries: in industrialized countries, it is around twice the amount deemed healthy by experts. And with the rise of new meat-eating middle classes in developing countries, global meat consumption is set to increase by 76 per cent by 2050.
  • Action on diets could also lower the costs of climate action across the rest of the economy by 50 per cent, while presenting a win-win strategy for policy-makers in terms of public health benefits.
  • In the UK and US, men are more likely to want to eat more meat than women.
  • In China, the desire to eat meat increases in line with income, while in the US and UK, wealthier people are less likely to say they want to eat more meat.
  • In the UK and US, climate change is a more politicized and divisive issue, and people are more sceptical about the science.
  • The US respondents remained most sceptical about the data presented to them.
  • In the UK and US, people were reluctant to take personal responsibility for climate change, seeing it as something those in public roles were responsible for.
  • The highest levels of concern around food safety and animal welfare associated with meat production were found among US respondents. 
  • People in the UK were most likely to eat less meat for health reasons.
  • In the UK and US, meat was associated positively with nutrition and fulfilment, but negatively with health and food safety.

The executive summary of the report is available in Mandarin and Portuguese.       

Read the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization monographs evaluation on consumption of red meat and processed meat, 26 October 2015. 

Contacts

Press Office

+44 (0)20 7957 5739




cli

Scholarship and the ship of state: rethinking the Anglo-American strategic decline analogy

12 March 2015 , Volume 91, Number 2

Katherine C. Epstein




cli

Long noncoding RNA pncRNA-D reduces cyclin D1 gene expression and arrests cell cycle through RNA m6A modification [RNA]

pncRNA-D is an irradiation-induced 602-nt long noncoding RNA transcribed from the promoter region of the cyclin D1 (CCND1) gene. CCND1 expression is predicted to be inhibited through an interplay between pncRNA-D and RNA-binding protein TLS/FUS. Because the pncRNA-D–TLS interaction is essential for pncRNA-D–stimulated CCND1 inhibition, here we studied the possible role of RNA modification in this interaction in HeLa cells. We found that osmotic stress induces pncRNA-D by recruiting RNA polymerase II to its promoter. pncRNA-D was highly m6A-methylated in control cells, but osmotic stress reduced the methylation and also arginine methylation of TLS in the nucleus. Knockdown of the m6A modification enzyme methyltransferase-like 3 (METTL3) prolonged the half-life of pncRNA-D, and among the known m6A recognition proteins, YTH domain-containing 1 (YTHDC1) was responsible for binding m6A of pncRNA-D. Knockdown of METTL3 or YTHDC1 also enhanced the interaction of pncRNA-D with TLS, and results from RNA pulldown assays implicated YTHDC1 in the inhibitory effect on the TLS–pncRNA-D interaction. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated deletion of candidate m6A site decreased the m6A level in pncRNA-D and altered its interaction with the RNA-binding proteins. Of note, a reduction in the m6A modification arrested the cell cycle at the G0/G1 phase, and pncRNA-D knockdown partially reversed this arrest. Moreover, pncRNA-D induction in HeLa cells significantly suppressed cell growth. Collectively, these findings suggest that m6A modification of the long noncoding RNA pncRNA-D plays a role in the regulation of CCND1 gene expression and cell cycle progression.




cli

The hibernating 100S complex is a target of ribosome-recycling factor and elongation factor G in Staphylococcus aureus [Protein Synthesis and Degradation]

The formation of translationally inactive 70S dimers (called 100S ribosomes) by hibernation-promoting factor is a widespread survival strategy among bacteria. Ribosome dimerization is thought to be reversible, with the dissociation of the 100S complexes enabling ribosome recycling for participation in new rounds of translation. The precise pathway of 100S ribosome recycling has been unclear. We previously found that the heat-shock GTPase HflX in the human pathogen Staphylococcus aureus is a minor disassembly factor. Cells lacking hflX do not accumulate 100S ribosomes unless they are subjected to heat exposure, suggesting the existence of an alternative pathway during nonstressed conditions. Here, we provide biochemical and genetic evidence that two essential translation factors, ribosome-recycling factor (RRF) and GTPase elongation factor G (EF-G), synergistically split 100S ribosomes in a GTP-dependent but tRNA translocation-independent manner. We found that although HflX and the RRF/EF-G pair are functionally interchangeable, HflX is expressed at low levels and is dispensable under normal growth conditions. The bacterial RRF/EF-G pair was previously known to target only the post-termination 70S complexes; our results reveal a new role in the reversal of ribosome hibernation that is intimately linked to bacterial pathogenesis, persister formation, stress responses, and ribosome integrity.




cli

COP26 Diplomatic Briefing Series: Money Matters: Climate Finance and the COP

Research Event

20 April 2020 - 9:00am to 10:30am

Event participants

Tenzin Wangmo, Lead Negotiator of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group 
Mattias Frumerie, Director at the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Rachel Ward, Programme Director and Head of Policy at the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change
Iseoluwa Akintunde, Mo Ibrahim Academy Fellow at Chatham House
Chair: Kirsty Hamilton, Associate Fellow, Chatham House

Finance plays a key role in enabling climate change mitigation and adaptation. It is also a contested issue in the UN climate negotiations. The fourth event in the Chatham House COP26 Diplomatic Briefing Series will explore the politics of climate finance in the context of the COP, and provide a comprehensive update of the main climate finance-related negotiation items and processes. The topic is particularly timely given that the UK Government has made climate finance one of its top thematic priorities for COP26 and that 2020 constitutes the deadline for developed countries to mobilise USD 100 billion per year to support climate action in developing countries.

Anna Aberg

Research Analyst, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme
020 7314 3629




cli

COP26 Diplomatic Briefing Series: Climate Change and National Security

Research Event

25 March 2020 - 9:00am to 10:30am

Event participants

Lieutenant General Richard Nugee, Departmental Lead for Climate Change and Sustainability in the UK Ministry of Defence
Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, Vice Dean (Public Policy) Engineering Sciences at the University College London and Associate Fellow at Chatham House
Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director for Conflict, Science and Technology, and Director of the International Security Programme at Chatham House
Professor Yacob Mulugetta, Professor of Energy and Development Policy at the University College London
Chair: Glada Lahn, Senior Research Fellow, Chatham House
Extreme weather, rising sea levels and a melting Arctic - the effects of climate change are posing an increasingly large threat to national security worldwide. Although the issue has gained traction within the international community in recent years, including within the UN Security Council, it is urgent that governments act more decisively to mitigate and respond to the threat, not least given that climate change is happening faster and in a more powerful way than originally anticipated.
 
The third event in the Chatham House COP26 Diplomatic Briefing Series – 'Climate Change and National Security' - will analyze how climate change acts as a threat multiplier, fuelling instability and endangering economic, social and political systems across the globe. The briefing will also provide recommendations of what governments and other stakeholders should do to develop effective responses.
 

Anna Aberg

Research Analyst, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme
020 7314 3629




cli

Reimagining Trade Rules to Address Climate Change in a Post-Pandemic World

Webinar Research Event

5 May 2020 - 2:00pm to 3:00pm

Event participants

James Bacchus, Distinguished University Professor of Global Affairs and Director of the Center for Global Economic and Environmental Opportunity at the University of Central Florida; Member and Chair, WTO Appellate Body, 1995 - 2003
Chair: Creon Butler, Director, Global Economy and Finance Programme, Chatham House

This event is part of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum and will take place virtually only.

International trade has a crucial role to play in tackling climate change. The production and transport of goods is a major contributor to green-house gas emissions, as is the delivery of certain cross-border services. At the same time, it looks inevitable that the COVID-19 pandemic will lead to a radical re-think of global supply chains as companies and governments seek to build in greater resilience while at the same time preserving as far as possible the efficiency gains and lower costs that global supply chains generate when operating normally.

Future international trade rules will have a crucial role to play in addressing both challenges; they represent both an opportunity and a risk. If designed well, they could play a very important role in re-enforcing moves towards a more sustainable use of resources, greater overall alignment of economies with the Paris Agreement, and greater economic resilience. But they could also, if poorly designed and implemented, or overly influenced by strategic political considerations, have significant unintended and negative implications. These include: reduced economic efficiency, increased poverty, unnecessary economic decoupling and reduced consensus on the broader mitigation and adaptation measures required to meet the challenge of climate change.

Against this background, a number of key questions arise: In what areas, if any, do we need to modify or adapt key principles underlying the system of global trade rules in order to respond to the twin challenges of responding to climate change and building greater economic resilience?  Which are the most promising/practical areas on which trade policy experts should focus now to re-launch/re-energize discussions on WTO reform, including, for example, dispute settlement? What national economic policies will be needed to complement the development of new/reformed trade disciplines in these areas? How might future political changes, such as a change in the US administration, affect the prospects for and political momentum behind such deliberations? What in any eventuality is the best way to build the required political momentum?
 
This roundtable is convened by the Global Economy and Finance Programme and the US and the Americas Programme and it is part of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum. The event will take place virtually only.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank founding partner AIG and supporting partners Clifford Chance LLP, Diageo plc, and EY for their generous support of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum.

Please note this event is taking place between 2pm to 3pm BST.




cli

Reimagining Trade Rules to Address Climate Change in a Post-Pandemic World

Webinar Research Event

5 May 2020 - 2:00pm to 3:00pm

Event participants

James Bacchus, Distinguished University Professor of Global Affairs and Director of the Center for Global Economic and Environmental Opportunity at the University of Central Florida; Member and Chair, WTO Appellate Body, 1995 - 2003
Chair: Creon Butler, Director, Global Economy and Finance Programme, Chatham House

This event is part of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum and will take place virtually only.

International trade has a crucial role to play in tackling climate change. The production and transport of goods is a major contributor to green-house gas emissions, as is the delivery of certain cross-border services. At the same time, it looks inevitable that the COVID-19 pandemic will lead to a radical re-think of global supply chains as companies and governments seek to build in greater resilience while at the same time preserving as far as possible the efficiency gains and lower costs that global supply chains generate when operating normally.

Future international trade rules will have a crucial role to play in addressing both challenges; they represent both an opportunity and a risk. If designed well, they could play a very important role in re-enforcing moves towards a more sustainable use of resources, greater overall alignment of economies with the Paris Agreement, and greater economic resilience. But they could also, if poorly designed and implemented, or overly influenced by strategic political considerations, have significant unintended and negative implications. These include: reduced economic efficiency, increased poverty, unnecessary economic decoupling and reduced consensus on the broader mitigation and adaptation measures required to meet the challenge of climate change.

Against this background, a number of key questions arise: In what areas, if any, do we need to modify or adapt key principles underlying the system of global trade rules in order to respond to the twin challenges of responding to climate change and building greater economic resilience?  Which are the most promising/practical areas on which trade policy experts should focus now to re-launch/re-energize discussions on WTO reform, including, for example, dispute settlement? What national economic policies will be needed to complement the development of new/reformed trade disciplines in these areas? How might future political changes, such as a change in the US administration, affect the prospects for and political momentum behind such deliberations? What in any eventuality is the best way to build the required political momentum?
 
This roundtable is convened by the Global Economy and Finance Programme and the US and the Americas Programme and it is part of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum. The event will take place virtually only.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank founding partner AIG and supporting partners Clifford Chance LLP, Diageo plc, and EY for their generous support of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum.

Please note this event is taking place between 2pm to 3pm BST.




cli

The Challenge of Ambition? Unlocking Climate Action and the Outcomes of COP24




cli

Power Shift: The Rise of Asia and the Decline of the West?




cli

Securing Our Climate Future: Risk, Resilience and Diplomacy




cli

Climate Action: A Role for Civil Disobedience?




cli

Climate, Food and Land




cli

Undercurrents: Episode 41 - Personalized Political Advertising, and Climate Justice in Chile




cli

The Climate Briefing: Episode 1 - What Does Success Look Like At COP26?




cli

Undercurrents: Episode 48 - UK Intelligence Agencies, and Paying for Climate Action




cli

The Climate Briefing: Episode 2 - European Climate Ambitions




cli

The Climate Briefing: Episode 3 - Climate Change and National Security




cli

Climate, Food and Land

Members Event

13 November 2019 - 1:00pm to 2:00pm

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Event participants

Professor Tim Benton, Director, Energy Environment and Resources Department, Chatham House
Chair: Laura Wellesley, Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Department, Chatham House
 

In the summer of 2019, a major report on climate change and land use was released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Prepared by 107 climate scientists, the report outlined the ways in which human activities have led to the degradation of land, increasingly turning the resource into a source of carbon, and not just a carbon sink, and thus mitigating the land’s ability to help curb climate change.
 
Against this backdrop, one of the report’s authors, Professor Tim Benton, reflects on the relationship between land, food and climate change.

He considers the challenges created by competing demands for the services land produces - such as food, energy, biodiversity and carbon storage - and the ways in which these demands are driving climate change and the degradation of land around the world.

How can governments, corporations and civil society best manage competing demands over land use? Faced with growing populations and a need to maintain food security, what are the limits to the contribution of land in addressing climate change? And what is the role of changing societal demand, especially for meat produce, in mitigating the pressure on land?
 

Event attributes

Livestream

Members Events Team




cli

Negative Emissions and Managing Climate Risks Scenarios

Research Event

4 July 2019 - 1:30pm to 5:00pm

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

This half-day strategic workshop, organized by Chatham House and E3G, brought together key climate experts, policymakers and influential actors, especially in Europe, for a focused and facilitated discussion on the roles, risks and potentials of negative emissions technologies (NETs). 

An interactive scenario exercise will be conducted, drawing on a climate simulation tool developed by Climate Interactive, to consider the potential roles and risks of different NETs deployments to meet the Paris Agreement targets and to consider the international co-operation required to manage the pathway to net-zero emissions. Participants will explore the political opportunities, discuss different scenarios and risks and identify areas of interventions and collective action.

The meeting is part of a series of events being held at Chatham House as part of London Climate Action Week (LCAW).




cli

Climate Change, Energy Transition, and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)

Invitation Only Research Event

17 January 2020 - 9:30am to 5:00pm

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Climate change and energy transition are re-shaping the extractive sectors, and the opportunities and risks they present for governments, companies and civil society. As the central governance standard in the extractives sector, the EITI has a critical role in supporting transparency in producer countries.

This workshop will bring together experts from the energy and extractives sectors, governance and transparency, and climate risk and financial disclosure initiatives to discuss the role of governance and transparency through the transition. It will consider the appropriate role for the EITI and potential entry points for policy and practice, and the potential for coordination with related transparency and disclosure initiatives. 

Please note attendance is by invitation only.




cli

Climate Action in 2020: Time to Focus on Forests

14 January 2020

Alison Hoare

Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme
More ambitious policies to reduce deforestation are key to effective climate policy, but to succeed, they require three big changes in approach.

2020-01-14-ReforestBrazil.jpg

Mahogany tree seedlings being taken to be planted out in the Amazon. Photo: Getty Images.

December’s UN climate talks held in Madrid were aptly titled ‘Time for Action’. While little progress was made at the conference in establishing an international framework that would help to instigate this, there is still much scope for action in 2020. The need for this has become all too apparent as the impacts of climate change are increasingly seen around the world.

One of the key areas where progress can be made in 2020 is in increasing the ambition of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), these being governments’ plans to take action in response to climate change. To date, 184 countries have submitted NDCs, yet the commitments that have been made fall far short of what is needed to avert catastrophic climate change.

In 2020, however, many countries will be revising their NDCs, presenting an important opportunity to shift momentum; to date 79 countries have announced that they will be enhancing the ambition of their NDCs.

The forest sector is one area where more ambitious targets are likely to be set, and indeed, at the Climate Action Summit in September 2019, more than 20 countries made new commitments for the conservation, reforestation and restoration of their forests.

This will be essential. As is well documented, reducing deforestation is critical to reducing carbon emissions, while healthy and diverse forests are vital for adapting and increasing resilience to climate change.

However, while it is important that ambitious targets are set, this is relatively easy; the bigger challenge lies in ensuring that these are achievable.

This is all too apparent from experience thus far. In 2014, the New York Declaration on Forests set the goal to halve forest loss by 2020, and to end it by 2030. In addition, it included the goal to restore 150 million hectares of degraded landscapes and forestlands by 2020, and a further 200 million hectares by 2030.

The declaration has been endorsed by over 50 countries, as well as business and civil society organizations, yet the 2020 goals are far from being reached – in the six years since the declaration was launched, it has been found that forest loss increased rather than declined, and only about 27 million hectares of land have been restored.

What then is needed to ensure that the commitments being made by governments in their NDCs will actually be met? Three big changes are required.

Firstly, a shift in perspective is needed in many countries to a more forest-sensitive approach to development, one that gives adequate recognition to the full range of values provided by forests, rather than primarily focusing on their role as a global carbon sink. These include their importance for local and national economies, for livelihoods and the well-being of forest-dependent peoples, and for biodiversity and the regulation of local climate and water systems.

The focus on nature-based solutions at the international level offers potential to support this shift. However, it is critical that these are not seen as ‘niche’ approaches, and that countries identify what nature-based solutions mean for them, and how forests and tree-rich landscapes can best be integrated into their development strategies.

Fundamental to achieving this will be further improvements in governance, and this is the second change that is required. Legal and institutional reforms are needed in many countries as well as significant investments in human and technical resources. This will enable processes to be strengthened, or put in place, so that equitable strategies can be developed and implemented – strategies that reflect a balance of the needs and priorities of the full range of stakeholders, including local and global, rural and urban, women and men, young and old.

Financing will of course be critical for this, and the least developed countries in particular will be hindered in the actions they can take without additional finance. This is the third area of change that is needed, and it is to be hoped that the international community will make better progress on this in 2020. Forest and land-use options are often described as a cost-effective means of tackling climate change, as is noted in the Santiago Call for Action on Forests for example.

This is not to say that these will be easy or cheap – as Chatham House has documented, experience of forest governance reform has shown that it takes significant funding and time to bring about deep-rooted change. However, the huge potential benefits that can result, for the citizens of forest-rich countries as well as for the planet, mean that forests and sustainable land-use are a good investment.




cli

Will a Devastating Bushfire Season Change Australia’s Climate Stance?

23 January 2020

Madeleine Forster

Richard and Susan Hayden Academy Fellow, International Law Programme

Professor Tim Benton

Research Director, Emerging Risks; Director, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme
With Australians experiencing first-hand the risks of climate change, Madeleine Forster and Tim Benton examine the influencers, at home or abroad, that could push the government towards more action.

2020-01-23-FireNSW.jpg

Residents look on as flames burn through bush on 4 January 2020 in Lake Tabourie, NSW. Photo: Getty Images.

The 2019–20 fire season in Australia has been unprecedented. To date, an estimated 18 million hectares of fire has cut swathes through the bush – an area greater than that of the average European country and over five times the size of blazes in the Amazon.

This reflects previous predictions of Australian science. Since 2008 and as recently as 2018, scientific bodies have warned that climate change will exacerbate existing conditions for fires and other climatic disasters in Australia. What used to be once-in-a-generation fires now re-appear within 10–15 years with increased ferocity, over longer seasons.

In a country known for climate denial and division, debate has erupted around bushfire management and climate change. One of these is whether controlled burns are the answer to Australia’s climate-affected fire conditions.

There is no single risk reduction strategy. Controlled burning remains key, if adapted to the environment and climate

But when three out of four seasons in a year can support destructive bushfires, there are clear limits to what controlled burning and other fire management techniques can achieve. Other ‘adaptation’ measures are also likely to provoke intense debate – including bush clearance. As one Australian expert offered to highlight where Australia has got to, families should probably not go on holiday to bush and beach during the height of summer when temperatures and fire risk peaks. 

So, unless Australia is prepared to debate radical changes to where people live and how land is used, the limits to adaptation imply the need for mitigation. This means supporting ambitious global greenhouse emissions reductions targets. As research from Victoria, one fire-prone state in Australia, highlights, ‘the emissions pathway we follow is the largest determinant of change to many variables [such as temperature] beyond the next few decades.’

Can Australia become a more active global partner on emissions?

Australia accounts for just over one per cent of global emissions, so reducing domestic emissions – even though on a per capita basis they are the highest in the world – will not reduce Australia’s climate risk. Showing international leadership and supporting a powerful coalition of the willing to tackle climate change is the only way ahead. By showing a willingness to adopt climate ambition, Australia can help more constructive worldwide action, and thereby reduce its own risk exposure. 

Leading by example is a politically difficult issue for Australia. Prime Minister Scott Morrison was re-elected in May 2019 on an economic stability platform, and a promise not to imperil employment growth through climate action. Australia has contested UN estimates that it will not meet its existing modest goals for domestic emissions, by seeking to rely on carryover credits from action under the Kyoto Protocol as proof of progress.

It has also distanced itself from concerns over global supply and demand in fossil fuels. Australia remains a global supplier for fossil fuels, including coal – the nation’s coal exports accounted for $67 billion in revenues in 2019 in an expanding but changing Asian market, supplying ‘some of the cheapest electricity in the world’.

Possible influencers of change

With Australians experiencing first-hand the risks of climate change, there is already pressure to do more. Many are sceptical this will translate into domestic targets or export policies that give Australia the moral authority to ask for more action on the global stage.

Here, diverse groups who share a common interest in seeing Australia recover from the bushfires and address future climate risks could be key.

Importantly this includes rural and urban-fringe communities affected by the bushfires. They were part of Morrison’s traditional supporter-base but are angry at the government’s handling of the crisis and increasingly see how tiptoeing around emissions (including exports) has also ‘buried’ open discussion at home on climate-readiness.

Australian states could also find themselves taking a lead role. Virtually all jurisdictions have now committed to their own goals, most based on zero-carbon goals by 2050 (as has New Zealand). These can support modelling for Australia’s energy transition from coal, through gas, to market competitive renewables, while also help to ensure this reflects community expectations on jobs, electricity prices and other costs. 

Other emerging voices include the insurance and banking sectors (the Reserve Bank of Australia warned of the long-term financial stability risks of climate change before the fires) and indigenous Australians (one group of Torres Strait Islanders have filed a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee which, if heard, will place Australia’s emissions record under the spotlight again). Their challenge now is finding a common language on what a cohesive approach to addressing climate change risk looks like. 

The international picture is mixed. The United States’ poor federal climate policy is a buffer for Australia. French President Emmanuel Macron has tried to raise the cost of inaction for Australia in current EU–Australia trade negotiations, but many large emitters in the Indo-Pacific region remain key Australian trading partners, investors and buyers of Australian coal. 

In the meantime, the United Kingdom is preparing for the meeting of parties to the Paris Agreement in Glasgow in November. A key global event following Brexit, the UK will no doubt be hoping to encourage a leadership circle with national commitments that meet global need to make the Glasgow meeting a success.

The UK public has expressed enormous sympathy for Australia in the bushfires and outrage over ‘climate denialism.’ Australia’s experience will be a cautionary tale of the effects of climate change at the meeting. Could the UK also support Australia to become a less reluctant partner in global climate action?




cli

Maintaining Connections: How Might the UK Remain Engaged in the EU's Climate and Energy Strategies?

Invitation Only Research Event

3 March 2020 - 10:30am to 12:00pm

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

As the UK leaves the EU and the formal negotiations on the future relationship begins, this workshop will discuss any immediate changes and review the short and medium term impacts of Brexit on the energy sector. 

The workshop will look to cover:

  • The implications for UK business and system operations of the UK leaving the Internal Energy Market.
  • Current and future investment trends in the UK energy system.
  • The trade of electricity and gas over inter-connectors.
  • The need for the development of a new EU-UK operational framework mechanism.
  • The UK's EU withdrawal agreement and the operation of the Single Electricity Market (SEM) across Ireland. 
  • Options for the UK outside of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the impact on carbon prices.

This workshop is part of a programme funded by the UK Energy Research Centre on Brexit and the UK’s Net Zero Energy Policy being run by the University of Warwick and Chatham House.

Attendance at this event is by invitation only.

Event attributes

Chatham House Rule

Chloé Prendleloup




cli

The prospects of carbon dioxide removal in climate policymaking within the United States

Research Event

19 November 2019 - 9:00am to 5:00pm

School of Law, University of California, Davis

This meeting formed part of a programme of work which investigates the role of negative emissions technologies (NETs) in achieving the Paris Agreement climate targets. Previous meetings held in London and Brussels have looked at integrating negative emissions into EU policy-making, the implications and degree to which NETs, and in particular bioenergy with carbon capture storage (BECCS), can be an effective climate mitigation tool. This meeting focused on the possible deployment pathways of NETs and alternatives to BECCS for the US in particular, in the context of geographical constraints and socioenvironmental implications, the role of the private sector, and appropriate governance and finance mechanisms. 

Melissa MacEwen

Project Manager, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme




cli

To Advance Trade and Climate Goals, ‘Global Britain’ Must Link Them

19 March 2020

Carolyn Deere Birkbeck

Associate Fellow, Global Economy and Finance Programme, and Hoffmann Centre for Sustainable Resource Economy

Dr Emily Jones

Associate Professor, Blavatnik School of Government

Dr Thomas Hale

Associate Professor, Blavatnik School of Government
COVID-19 is a sharp reminder of why trade policy matters. As the UK works to forge new trade deals, it must align its trade policy agenda with its climate ambition.

2020-03-19-Boris-Johnson-COP26.jpg

Boris Johnson at the launch of the UK-hosted COP26 UN Climate Summit at the Science Museum, London on February 4, 2020. Photo by Jeremy Selwyn - WPA Pool/Getty Images.

COVID-19 is a sharp reminder of why trade and climate policy matters. How can governments maintain access to critical goods and services, and ensure global supply chains function in times of crisis?

The timing of many trade negotiations is now increasingly uncertain, as are the UK’s plans to host COP26 in November. Policy work continues, however, and the EU has released its draft negotiating text for the new UK-EU trade deal, which includes a sub-chapter specifically devoted to climate. 

This is a timely reminder both of the pressing need for the UK to integrate its trade and climate policymaking and to use the current crisis-induced breathing space in international negotiations - however limited - to catch up on both strategy and priorities on this critical policy intersection.

The UK government has moved fast to reset its external trade relations post-Brexit. In the past month it formally launched bilateral negotiations with the EU and took up a seat at the World Trade Organization (WTO) as an independent member. Until the COVID-19 crisis hit, negotiations were also poised to start with the US.

The UK is also in the climate spotlight as host of COP26, the most important international climate negotiation since Paris in 2015, which presents a vital opportunity for the government to show leadership by aligning its trade agenda with its climate and sustainability commitments in bold new ways.

Not just an empty aspiration

This would send a signal that ‘Global Britain’ is not just an empty aspiration, but a concrete commitment to lead.

Not only is concerted action on the climate crisis a central priority for UK citizens, a growing and increasingly vocal group of UK businesses committed to decarbonization are calling on the government to secure a more transparent and predictable international market place that supports climate action by business.

With COP26, the UK has a unique responsibility to push governments to ratchet up ambition in the national contributions to climate action – and to promote coherence between climate ambition and wider economic policymaking, including on trade. If Britain really wants to lead, here are some concrete actions it should take.

At the national level, the UK can pioneer new ways to put environmental sustainability – and climate action in particular - at the heart of its trade agenda. Achieving the government’s ambitious Clean Growth Strategy - which seeks to make the UK the global leader in a range of industries including electric cars and offshore wind – should be a central objective of UK trade policy.

The UK should re-orient trade policy frameworks to incentivize the shift toward a more circular and net zero global economy. And all elements of UK trade policy could be assessed against environmental objectives - for example, their contribution to phasing out fossil fuels, helping to reverse overexploitation of natural resources, and support for sustainable agriculture and biodiversity.

In its bilateral and regional trade negotiations, the UK can and should advance its environment, climate and trade goals in tandem, and implementation of the Paris Agreement must be a core objective of the UK trade strategy.

A core issue for the UK is how to ensure that efforts to decarbonise the economy are not undercut by imports from high-carbon producers. Here, a ‘border carbon adjustment (BCA)’ - effectively a tax on the climate pollution of imports - would support UK climate goals. The EU draft negotiating text released yesterday put the issue of BCAs front and centre, making crystal clear that the intersection of climate, environment and trade policy goals will be a central issue for UK-EU trade negotiations.

Even with the United States, a trade deal can and should still be seized as a way to incentivize the shift toward a net zero and more circular economy. At the multilateral level, as a new independent WTO member, the UK has an opportunity to help build a forward-looking climate and trade agenda.

The UK could help foster dialogue, research and action on a cluster of ‘climate and trade’ issues that warrant more focused attention at the WTO. These include the design of carbon pricing policies at the border that are transparent, fair and support a just transition; proposals for a climate waiver for WTO rules; and identification of ways multilateral trade cooperation could promote a zero carbon and more circular global economy.  

To help nudge multilateral discussion along, the UK could also ask to join a critical ‘path finder’ effort by six governments, led by New Zealand, to pursue an agreement on climate change, trade and sustainability (ACCTS). This group aims to find ways forward on three central trade and climate issues: removing fossil fuel subsidies, climate-related labelling, and promoting trade in climate-friendly goods and services.

At present, the complex challenges at the intersection of climate, trade and development policy are too often used to defer or side-step issues deemed ‘too hard’ or ‘too sensitive’ to tackle. The UK could help here by working to ensure multilateral climate and trade initiatives share adjustment burdens, recognise the historical responsibility of developed countries, and do not unfairly disadvantage developing countries - especially the least developed.

Many developing countries are keen to promote climate-friendly exports as part of wider export diversification strategies  and want to reap greater returns from greener global value chains. Further, small island states and least-developed countries – many of which are Commonwealth members – that are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and natural disasters, need support to adapt in the face of trade shocks and to build climate-resilient, trade-related infrastructure and export sectors.

As an immediate next step, the UK should actively support the growing number of WTO members in favour of a WTO Ministerial Statement on environmental sustainability and trade. It should work with its key trading partners in the Commonwealth and beyond to ensure the agenda is inclusive, supports achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and helps developing countries benefit from a more environmentally sustainable global economy.

As the UK prepares to host COP26, negotiates deals with the EU and US, and prepares for its first WTO Ministerial meeting as an independent member, it must show it can lead the way nationally, bilaterally, and multilaterally. And to ensure the government acts, greater engagement from the UK’s business, civil society and research sectors is critical – we need all hands on deck to forge and promote concrete proposals for aligning UK trade policy with the climate ambition our world needs.




cli

COP26 Diplomatic Briefing: Climate Ambition in Europe and its Potential Global Impact

17 February 2020 - 8:30am to 10:00am

Chatham House | 10 St James's Square | London | SW1Y 4LE

Jacob Werksman, Principal Adviser to Directorate General for Climate Action, European Commission
Imke Lübbeke, Head of EU Climate and Energy Policy, WWF European Policy Office 
Simon Petrie, Head of International Climate Strategy - Europe, UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Jen Austin, Policy Director, We Mean Business Coalition
Chair: Jill Duggan, Associate Fellow, Chatham House

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has declared that she wants Europe to become ‘the first climate-neutral continent by 2050’, and in December 2019, the Commission presented the European Green Deal in order to achieve this objective. However, even though greenhouse gas emissions from the EU have fallen by more than 20 per cent since 1990, the Union remains the third largest emitter in the world, after the United States and China.

What are the opportunities and challenges for raising climate ambition in Europe?  Will the EU increase its Nationally Determined Contribution and what impact might this have globally? How might Brexit affect climate action in the EU and the UK?  The second event in the Chatham House COP26 Diplomatic Briefing Series will address these critical questions.

Anna Aberg

Research Analyst, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme
020 7314 3629




cli

COP26 Diplomatic Briefing Series: Climate Change and National Security

Research Event

25 March 2020 - 9:00am to 10:30am

Event participants

Lieutenant General Richard Nugee, Departmental Lead for Climate Change and Sustainability in the UK Ministry of Defence
Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, Vice Dean (Public Policy) Engineering Sciences at the University College London and Associate Fellow at Chatham House
Dr. Patricia Lewis, Research Director for Conflict, Science and Technology, and Director of the International Security Programme at Chatham House
Professor Yacob Mulugetta, Professor of Energy and Development Policy at the University College London
Chair: Glada Lahn, Senior Research Fellow, Chatham House
Extreme weather, rising sea levels and a melting Arctic - the effects of climate change are posing an increasingly large threat to national security worldwide. Although the issue has gained traction within the international community in recent years, including within the UN Security Council, it is urgent that governments act more decisively to mitigate and respond to the threat, not least given that climate change is happening faster and in a more powerful way than originally anticipated.
 
The third event in the Chatham House COP26 Diplomatic Briefing Series – 'Climate Change and National Security' - will analyze how climate change acts as a threat multiplier, fuelling instability and endangering economic, social and political systems across the globe. The briefing will also provide recommendations of what governments and other stakeholders should do to develop effective responses.
 

Anna Aberg

Research Analyst, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme
020 7314 3629




cli

Long noncoding RNA pncRNA-D reduces cyclin D1 gene expression and arrests cell cycle through RNA m6A modification [RNA]

pncRNA-D is an irradiation-induced 602-nt long noncoding RNA transcribed from the promoter region of the cyclin D1 (CCND1) gene. CCND1 expression is predicted to be inhibited through an interplay between pncRNA-D and RNA-binding protein TLS/FUS. Because the pncRNA-D–TLS interaction is essential for pncRNA-D–stimulated CCND1 inhibition, here we studied the possible role of RNA modification in this interaction in HeLa cells. We found that osmotic stress induces pncRNA-D by recruiting RNA polymerase II to its promoter. pncRNA-D was highly m6A-methylated in control cells, but osmotic stress reduced the methylation and also arginine methylation of TLS in the nucleus. Knockdown of the m6A modification enzyme methyltransferase-like 3 (METTL3) prolonged the half-life of pncRNA-D, and among the known m6A recognition proteins, YTH domain-containing 1 (YTHDC1) was responsible for binding m6A of pncRNA-D. Knockdown of METTL3 or YTHDC1 also enhanced the interaction of pncRNA-D with TLS, and results from RNA pulldown assays implicated YTHDC1 in the inhibitory effect on the TLS–pncRNA-D interaction. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated deletion of candidate m6A site decreased the m6A level in pncRNA-D and altered its interaction with the RNA-binding proteins. Of note, a reduction in the m6A modification arrested the cell cycle at the G0/G1 phase, and pncRNA-D knockdown partially reversed this arrest. Moreover, pncRNA-D induction in HeLa cells significantly suppressed cell growth. Collectively, these findings suggest that m6A modification of the long noncoding RNA pncRNA-D plays a role in the regulation of CCND1 gene expression and cell cycle progression.





cli

Will a Devastating Bushfire Season Change Australia’s Climate Stance?

23 January 2020

Madeleine Forster

Richard and Susan Hayden Academy Fellow, International Law Programme

Professor Tim Benton

Research Director, Emerging Risks; Director, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme
With Australians experiencing first-hand the risks of climate change, Madeleine Forster and Tim Benton examine the influencers, at home or abroad, that could push the government towards more action.

2020-01-23-FireNSW.jpg

Residents look on as flames burn through bush on 4 January 2020 in Lake Tabourie, NSW. Photo: Getty Images.

The 2019–20 fire season in Australia has been unprecedented. To date, an estimated 18 million hectares of fire has cut swathes through the bush – an area greater than that of the average European country and over five times the size of blazes in the Amazon.

This reflects previous predictions of Australian science. Since 2008 and as recently as 2018, scientific bodies have warned that climate change will exacerbate existing conditions for fires and other climatic disasters in Australia. What used to be once-in-a-generation fires now re-appear within 10–15 years with increased ferocity, over longer seasons.

In a country known for climate denial and division, debate has erupted around bushfire management and climate change. One of these is whether controlled burns are the answer to Australia’s climate-affected fire conditions.

There is no single risk reduction strategy. Controlled burning remains key, if adapted to the environment and climate

But when three out of four seasons in a year can support destructive bushfires, there are clear limits to what controlled burning and other fire management techniques can achieve. Other ‘adaptation’ measures are also likely to provoke intense debate – including bush clearance. As one Australian expert offered to highlight where Australia has got to, families should probably not go on holiday to bush and beach during the height of summer when temperatures and fire risk peaks. 

So, unless Australia is prepared to debate radical changes to where people live and how land is used, the limits to adaptation imply the need for mitigation. This means supporting ambitious global greenhouse emissions reductions targets. As research from Victoria, one fire-prone state in Australia, highlights, ‘the emissions pathway we follow is the largest determinant of change to many variables [such as temperature] beyond the next few decades.’

Can Australia become a more active global partner on emissions?

Australia accounts for just over one per cent of global emissions, so reducing domestic emissions – even though on a per capita basis they are the highest in the world – will not reduce Australia’s climate risk. Showing international leadership and supporting a powerful coalition of the willing to tackle climate change is the only way ahead. By showing a willingness to adopt climate ambition, Australia can help more constructive worldwide action, and thereby reduce its own risk exposure. 

Leading by example is a politically difficult issue for Australia. Prime Minister Scott Morrison was re-elected in May 2019 on an economic stability platform, and a promise not to imperil employment growth through climate action. Australia has contested UN estimates that it will not meet its existing modest goals for domestic emissions, by seeking to rely on carryover credits from action under the Kyoto Protocol as proof of progress.

It has also distanced itself from concerns over global supply and demand in fossil fuels. Australia remains a global supplier for fossil fuels, including coal – the nation’s coal exports accounted for $67 billion in revenues in 2019 in an expanding but changing Asian market, supplying ‘some of the cheapest electricity in the world’.

Possible influencers of change

With Australians experiencing first-hand the risks of climate change, there is already pressure to do more. Many are sceptical this will translate into domestic targets or export policies that give Australia the moral authority to ask for more action on the global stage.

Here, diverse groups who share a common interest in seeing Australia recover from the bushfires and address future climate risks could be key.

Importantly this includes rural and urban-fringe communities affected by the bushfires. They were part of Morrison’s traditional supporter-base but are angry at the government’s handling of the crisis and increasingly see how tiptoeing around emissions (including exports) has also ‘buried’ open discussion at home on climate-readiness.

Australian states could also find themselves taking a lead role. Virtually all jurisdictions have now committed to their own goals, most based on zero-carbon goals by 2050 (as has New Zealand). These can support modelling for Australia’s energy transition from coal, through gas, to market competitive renewables, while also help to ensure this reflects community expectations on jobs, electricity prices and other costs. 

Other emerging voices include the insurance and banking sectors (the Reserve Bank of Australia warned of the long-term financial stability risks of climate change before the fires) and indigenous Australians (one group of Torres Strait Islanders have filed a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee which, if heard, will place Australia’s emissions record under the spotlight again). Their challenge now is finding a common language on what a cohesive approach to addressing climate change risk looks like. 

The international picture is mixed. The United States’ poor federal climate policy is a buffer for Australia. French President Emmanuel Macron has tried to raise the cost of inaction for Australia in current EU–Australia trade negotiations, but many large emitters in the Indo-Pacific region remain key Australian trading partners, investors and buyers of Australian coal. 

In the meantime, the United Kingdom is preparing for the meeting of parties to the Paris Agreement in Glasgow in November. A key global event following Brexit, the UK will no doubt be hoping to encourage a leadership circle with national commitments that meet global need to make the Glasgow meeting a success.

The UK public has expressed enormous sympathy for Australia in the bushfires and outrage over ‘climate denialism.’ Australia’s experience will be a cautionary tale of the effects of climate change at the meeting. Could the UK also support Australia to become a less reluctant partner in global climate action?




cli

Predicting Climate - Part 2

What.s in store for our climate and us? It.s an extraordinarily complex question whose answer requires physics, chemistry, earth science, and mathematics (among other subjects) along with massive computing power. Mathematicians use partial differential equations to model the movement of the atmosphere; dynamical systems to describe the feedback between land, ocean, air, and ice; and statistics to quantify the uncertainty of current projections. Although there is some discrepancy among different climate forecasts, researchers all agree on the tremendous need for people to join this effort and create new approaches to help understand our climate. It.s impossible to predict the weather even two weeks in advance, because almost identical sets of temperature, pressure, etc. can in just a few days result in drastically different weather. So how can anyone make a prediction about long-term climate? The answer is that climate is an average of weather conditions. In the same way that good predictions about the average height of 100 people can be made without knowing the height of any one person, forecasts of climate years into the future are feasible without being able to predict the conditions on a particular day. The challenge now is to gather more data and use subjects such as fluid dynamics and numerical methods to extend today.s 20-year projections forward to the next 100 years. For More Information: Mathematics of Climate Change: A New Discipline for an Uncertain Century, Dana Mackenzie, 2007.




cli

Predicting Climate - Part 1

What.s in store for our climate and us? It.s an extraordinarily complex question whose answer requires physics, chemistry, earth science, and mathematics (among other subjects) along with massive computing power. Mathematicians use partial differential equations to model the movement of the atmosphere; dynamical systems to describe the feedback between land, ocean, air, and ice; and statistics to quantify the uncertainty of current projections. Although there is some discrepancy among different climate forecasts, researchers all agree on the tremendous need for people to join this effort and create new approaches to help understand our climate. It.s impossible to predict the weather even two weeks in advance, because almost identical sets of temperature, pressure, etc. can in just a few days result in drastically different weather. So how can anyone make a prediction about long-term climate? The answer is that climate is an average of weather conditions. In the same way that good predictions about the average height of 100 people can be made without knowing the height of any one person, forecasts of climate years into the future are feasible without being able to predict the conditions on a particular day. The challenge now is to gather more data and use subjects such as fluid dynamics and numerical methods to extend today.s 20-year projections forward to the next 100 years. For More Information: Mathematics of Climate Change: A New Discipline for an Uncertain Century, Dana Mackenzie, 2007.




cli

Some of the latest climate models provide unrealistically high projections of future warming

A new study from University of Michigan climate researchers concludes that some of the latest-generation climate models may be overly sensitive to carbon dioxide increases and therefore project future warming that is unrealistically high.




cli

Insects populations have been declining for nearly 100 years, study reveals

When did you last see a glow worm? Most likely, quite some time ago. Depending on how young you are, you may have never seen one at all. Those light-emitting insects, Wordsworth's "earthborn stars", have been declining in the UK for decades. That means that scientists now see them in fewer places, and even in those pockets where conditions are right for them, there are fewer of them to be found.




cli

How modelling articulates the science of climate change

To imagine earth without greenhouse gases in its atmosphere is to turn the familiar blue marble into a barren lump of rock and ice on which the average surface temperature hovers around -18ºC. Such a planet would not receive less of the sunlight which is the ultimate source of all Earth's warmth. But when the energy it absorbed from the sunlight was re-emitted as infrared radiation, as the laws of physics require, it would head unimpeded back out into space.




cli

Parallel threats of COVID-19, climate change, require 'brave, visionary and collaborative leadership': UN chief

And against the backdrop of threatened lives, crippled businesses and damaged economies, the UN chief warned the Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are also under threat.




cli

These key investments can build resilience to pandemics and climate change

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to wreak havoc, the world's energies are rightly focused on efforts to contain the virus and manage the economic fallout. Yet, in the background, the climate emergency remains as urgent as ever.




cli

CBD News: Press release; Governments open meeting in Bonn to take action on declining biodiversity resources.




cli

CBD News: Message from Executive Secretary, Ahmed Djoghlaf, on the occasion of the High-Level Conference on World Food Security and the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy FAO, Rome, 3 June 2008.




cli

CBD Biodiversity: A Missing Link for Mitigating Climate Change - World Environment Day celebrated in Montreal.