Latest news with #ClimateFuture
News24
27-04-2025
- Business
- News24
Countries could use forests to 'mask' needed emission cuts
Major economies are overstating how much carbon their forests can absorb, a report shows. The assessment warned that countries could "game the system" when reporting their greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists are uncertain about how carbon sinks will respond to a warming planet in the future. For climate change news and analysis, go to News24 Climate Future. Major economies are overstating how much carbon their forests can absorb in a climate accounting fudge that could allow them to use even more fossil fuels, new research said on Thursday. The assessment singled out Brazil and Australia, and warned a lack of rules around accounting for forests and other land-based carbon sinks meant countries could "game the system" when reporting their national greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists are still unclear about how carbon sinks might behave as the planet warms in future, and exactly how much heat-trapping carbon dioxide they might soak up from the atmosphere. But that has not stopped countries from making their own assumptions and using those numbers in their national climate plans, which are due to be finalised to 2035 before the next UN climate talks in Brazil in November. Climate Analytics, a policy institute that independently assesses these plans, said overly optimistic assumptions about how much CO2 forests might draw down was "masking the scale and pace of the fossil fuel emissions cuts needed." READ | Vast African forests store twice as much carbon as previously thought This concealed the true effort needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the ambition set out in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the latest versions of its climate plan, Australia had leaned so heavily on forests to reduce its carbon footprint that it would amount to scaling back real cuts to emissions by 10%, Climate Analytics said. Brazil, meanwhile, has announced its own pledge to cut emissions by 59% to 67% below 2005 levels by 2035, but has not defined the extent to which forests will help meet this goal. Climate Analytics said structuring the target in this manner meant Brazil could still allow its energy emissions to double. "If you don't use forests, then everything has to be done by the energy sector," said Claudio Forner, who co-authored the new research by Climate Analytics. "But if you use all forests, then the emissions actually can continue growing." He said the problem had arisen because the Paris climate deal allowed for countries to come up with their own assumptions about how much CO2 would be absorbed by their land. "Without rules, countries just game the system," Forner told AFP. Assuming growth While forests will be crucial to global efforts to reduce planet-heating emissions, these estimates should be listed separately and not used to "offset" energy and industry emissions, he said. That is because the complex processes by which forests and other land sinks absorb carbon are not as well understood as the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change. Carbon stored in trees can also be released back into the atmosphere in the event of forest fires and other natural mechanisms. There are also concerns that climate change and other human-driven factors are weakening the ability of forests and soils to soak up carbon. "Science doesn't understand how the carbon sink is going to be behaving into the future," said Forner. "And if scientists don't, I'm sure that most governments don't either, but they still just use assumptions of continuing growth to their numbers. If those assumptions are wrong, then you have this deficit." Climate Analytics has previously estimated this uncertainty could amount to up to three billion tonnes of carbon dioxide - roughly equivalent to Europe's emissions for a year. UN climate experts have also raised broad concerns about a "significant discrepancy" between the way countries account for land in their climate plans and the methods used by scientists, which they said could be equal to around 15% of global emissions. In a report last year, they said efforts to realign different accounting systems for land use CO2 emissions and removal would mean the world has less time than previously thought to reach net-zero emissions.
News24
27-04-2025
- Business
- News24
Bayer says legal woes could force it to pull weedkiller
Bayer said it could be forced to pull its Roundup weedkiller from the market if it is not able to contain legal troubles. Already, has spent over $10 billion to settle cases in the US alleging that it failed to disclose Roundup's health risks. Claimants say that gthe weedkiller has an ingredient that causes blood cancers, but Bayer says scientific studies and regulatory approvals show it is safe. For climate change news and analysis, go to News24 Climate Future. German chemicals giant Bayer said Friday it could be forced to pull its Roundup weedkiller from the market if it is not able to contain simmering legal troubles. "We're nearing a point where the litigation industry could force us to even stop selling this vital product," CEO Bill Anderson said at Bayer's annual general meeting. The group had "no specific plans" to discontinue sales in the United States, Anderson said in a question-and-answer session. Bayer however "cannot continue to market the product in the way we have in the past... in a financially sustainable way because of the lawsuits", he added. In Anderson's opinion it was "very important for US farmers, US consumers... to make changes in the law". The stakes were also "really high" for Bayer, which has seen its share price tumble in the wake of the its acquisition of Roundup-maker Monsanto in 2018. "The status quo is not an option," Anderson said. Bayer has long battled to bring the legal troubles under control and has said it aims to significantly contain litigation "by the end of 2026". Already, the Leverkusen-based group has spent over $10 billion (8.8 billion euros) to settle cases in the United States alleging that Bayer failed to disclose Roundup's health risks. US court battle Claimants say that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes blood cancers, while Bayer says scientific studies and regulatory approvals show that the weedkiller is safe. Bayer this month made another request for the US Supreme Court to intervene in the case, its third such attempt and the first since Anderson took the reins in 2023. After being twice rebuffed by the court, Bayer is hopeful of more success following rulings by federal appellate courts, which the German group said support its case. Bayer has at the same time asked investors to approve capital increase through the issuance of new stock to cover potential legal costs related to Roundup. The efforts to manage the possible damage have however done little to quell investor concerns about the group's direction. Speaking at the meeting, Deka Investment manager Ingo Speich said Anderson's record as CEO was "disastrous". Shareholders were now being asked to "pay the price" for Roundup's issues, Speich said, describing the move as a "bitter pill to swallow". "Why should everything be different this time and the wave of lawsuits stopped with more money?", said Janne Werning of Union Investment.
News24
22-04-2025
- Climate
- News24
Global warming is a security threat and armies must adapt
Militaries are exposed to climate change and cannot let it become a strategic "blind spot", security experts say. Militaries are increasingly being called in following floods, storms and wildfires, stretching the capacity of some forces. Extreme temperatures can risk the health of soldiers and even reduce the amount of cargo that planes can carry. For climate change news and analysis, go to News24 Climate Future. From responding to weather disasters to rising competition in the fast-warming Arctic, militaries are exposed to climate change and cannot let it become a strategic "blind spot", security experts say. Concerns have grown recently that climate action is being sidelined as Europe beefs up defence and the US retreats from allies and its green commitments. But defence departments have already underscored that a warming planet poses major national security challenges, and militaries need to adapt to respond to these evolving threats. "You can't escape this. Climate doesn't care who's president or what your political goals are at the moment," said Erin Sikorsky, director of the Washington-based Center for Climate & Security. "It is coming, and militaries need to be prepared," she said. In the US, where President Donald Trump's administration has scrubbed global warming from government websites, the latest intelligence threat assessment made no mention of climate change. Sikorsky said this leaves crucial strategic gaps, particularly when it comes to renewable energy superpower China and the race for supremacy in the Arctic, where the loss of sea ice is opening up shipping lanes and access to resources. "What I worry about, as someone who worked in national security for a long time, is this blind spot puts the US at risk," she said. In Europe, Russia's invasion of Ukraine sparked energy security fears and accelerated many countries' renewables ambitions. But in recent months countries have slashed international development aid, throwing climate budgets into question as spending priorities turn to defence and trade. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock last month acknowledged the "extremely challenging" geopolitical situation but insisted that climate action remained a "top security policy". The country plans a half trillion dollar spending "bazooka" for military and infrastructure, coupled with 100 billion euros for climate measures. 'Weaponising' disaster "Anyone thinking about security needs to think about climate as well. We are already living in the climate crisis," said an assessment commissioned by Germany's foreign and defence ministries in February. It said climate challenges were emerging over "the entire range of military tasks", with increased risks including large-scale crop failures, conflict and instability. In a September report, the UK's Ministry of Defense said humanity's impact on climate and the environment "continues to have far-reaching consequences, putting significant pressure on societies and economies and threatening the very existence of some states". Militaries are increasingly being called in following floods, storms and wildfires, stretching the capacity of some forces, said Sikorsky, whose organisation has tracked more than 500 such emergency responses across the world since 2022. There have also been efforts to "weaponise" climate disasters, she said. READ | World's 'exceptional' heat streak lengthens into March Last year, torrential rains unleashed by Storm Boris caused massive flooding in Poland that swept away bridges, and destroyed homes and schools. But as soldiers helped evacuate residents and clear debris, the government said it faced a 300% increase in Russian online disinformation, targeting the relief effort. Sikorsky said China used the same "playbook" in the aftermath of deadly floods in Valencia, Spain, which also saw thousands of soldiers deployed. Warming itself also has major operational implications. Extreme temperatures can risk the health of soldiers and even reduce the amount of cargo that planes can carry, said Sikorsky. Energy vulnerabilities Militaries are not required to report their greenhouse gas emissions, so their direct contribution to global warming is not precisely known. But a 2024 report by the European Union estimated the carbon "bootprint" of the world's armies could be 5.5% of global emissions. The Pentagon alone produced more emissions than nations like Portugal or Denmark, the "Greening the Armies" report said. Armies worried about fossil fuel dependence long before climate change became a priority - concerns go back to the oil crisis in the 1970s, said Duncan Depledge from Loughborough University, who studies the implications of climate for militaries. According to a 2019 study, the US army consumed about a gallon of fuel per soldier per day in World War Two. During the 1990-91 Gulf War it was around four gallons, and by 2006 it had surged to some 16 gallons in US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A heavy reliance on fossil fuels creates "significant vulnerabilities" in combat, said the EU report. Fuel convoys are an easy target for roadside bombs, which accounted for nearly half of American deaths in Iraq and close to 40% in Afghanistan, it said. Renewable energy could help avoid these risks, the report said, but acknowledged the technology was "not yet entirely suitable for combat". Depledge said a faster global energy transition to avert "climate catastrophe" would pose challenges for armies, likely raising concerns over their fossil fuel use. "Whichever direction you go, militaries no longer have a choice about the fact that they're going to be operating in a very different world to what they do today," he said.
