One Finite Planet

Beyond COP26: 1.5°C Now Ensured, Where Next?

First Published:

cnn: Annual global temperature compared to pre-industrial levels, in degrees Celsius
  • Preventing 1.5°C Was Never Going To Happen.
  • But Action Is Getting Real.
  • So, Where Next?

Preventing 1.5°C Was Never Going To Happen At COP26.

My notes on COP26 are here, but although with the leaders having left I had thought the sad story over, there has been positive news since then.

COP26 opened to two declarations.

  • This is our last chance to avoid 1.5°C temperature rise.
  • The doomsday clock is now at 1 minute till midnight, and 1.5°C is that midnight.

For all the enthusiasm of those declarations, there was not sufficient buy in to the doomsday clock argument to produce anything sufficiently significant beyond that at previous conferences which have so far failed to arrest an acceleration in temperature increases.

The last chance to avoid 1.5°C card having been played, what is next? It seems certain 1.5°C will be reached before 2030 when target set by current governments for their successors come into force anyway, but I wonder what the next card will be.

Simply taking the data from this graph and using regression, it should be expected 1.5°C would occur in 2023.

But Action Is Getting Real.

I made notes on COP26, but thought with the leaders having left it seemed over. But no, there is more. So it urns out I need to update things. Stand by..

So, Where Next?

I will also maintain this page to keep a list of post COP26 announcements, and try to analyze given current trends, at what point it would be possible to limit temperature increases.


Table of Contents


COP27: Climate change action sabotage?

Reports from COP27 seems indicate the key initiative this year to make wealthy nations cover the cost of the damages poor nations will incur as a result of emissions that have main originated from those wealthy nations.

The proposal as it stands has a missing an essential piece, and trying to cover for that essential piece, appears most to likely to increase emissions, and move COP away from a focus on solving the climate crisis and instead toward just fighting over the cost.

This is a troubled look at the key flaw in what has been put forward and the real solution that should be in place.

Read More »

Did Al Gore nail it: Is climate change merely inconvenient, or is it an existential threat?

Claims that +1.5oC warming would be ‘catastrophic’, and that climate change represents an ‘existential threat’ can be quite vague as just what is ‘catastrophic’ or an ‘existential threat’?

This webpaper, seeks to translate ‘catastrophic’ outcomes and ‘existential threats’ into more concrete outcomes.

“We recognise climate change is a serious problem and are committed to net zero by 2050 in order to prevent the disastrous consequences anticipated to occur by around 2026”

Typical government position: Is it ok?

Read More »

The Power struggle in Australia.

From “the biggest corruption scandal ever” in Brazil, problems in Venezuela, human rights in Saudi Arabia and Iran, to the problems caused by lobbyists against action on climate change, an abundance of fossil fuels is a source of political power, yet rarely force for good, and Australia, with a wealth of coal and gas, is not spared.

The current crisis in Ukraine not only drives up energy prices globally, but it also creates a dilemma for gas producing nations.

Read More »

The transition to EVs and its environmental impact.

Its 2022, and only 1 in 8 new car purchases globally is an EV, and as only 1 in 4 car purchases is a new car, only 1 in 32, or around 3% of all car purchases, are an EV purchase. While the EV percentage is rising, there will be gas/petrol/diesel cars until at least 2045, and little reduction in emissions from the EV transition alone.

As demand for EVs will continue to outstrip supply, no one will need to choose an EV to save the planet, or run out of other choices any time soon. Bans are to pressure manufacturers to move from protecting their existing assets and produce enough EVs to meet demand, rather than force consumers into ICEVs.

Read More »

Big Oil, AKA Big Fossil: How real, and what about ‘big climate’?

Yes, big oil clearly has a vested interest in arguing against climate change and downplaying risks, but on the other hand, aren’t there also vested interests exaggerating and overstating the risks of climate change? Effectively ‘big renewables’, ‘big science’ or ‘big climate’?

This is a look at the financial might on each side of the argument, and the respective motives for each side to overstate their case.

Is this really a balanced fight, or is it more like the might of ‘big tobacco’ vs ‘whistle blower medical research’ all over again?

Read More »

The electrical grid, V2G and EV Home Charging: Missing an opportunity for the planet.

Move to renewables for energy, and electricity for transport, and we solve the climate problem.

But renewables require storage, and uptake of EVs requires home charging, and there is a cost to both.

But what if electric vehicles could solve the “green power grid” problem, provide energy security, and avert a threat of increasing inequality, and reduce costs? It turns out this dream scenario is definitely possible but can be fully realised only if the home charging problem is solved.

Read More »