Nick Breeze interviews Christiana Figueres: Does Figueres interview give clues as to why we went backwards from Copenhagen to Paris?

Does Figueres interview give clues as to why we went backwards from Copenhagen to Paris?

by David Tattershall, Envisionation, April 14, 2017

Comment by Nick:  Watching our recent interview with Christiana Figueres, David Tattershall (Envisionation Limited) responded with considered concern with respect to her answer to the question on the reduction of emissions from the aviation industry.

Just to recap, here is the transcripted answer with Tattershall's response below.

Nick Breeze: The 2020 report highlights the challenge posed by transport. If you take aviation as an example, you see that we’re still building runways, we’re all flying further for less money. Surely, to hit these goals, we just need to take some individual responsibility and fly less?

Christiana Figueres: “The fact is that you cannot exempt any sector of the economy from these efforts. So you can’t say ‘We’re not going to fly because aviation is too high emitting.’ That is the wrong approach. The approach is: aviation and maritime and land transport, all three of them have to come down in their emissions.
“And it’s very interesting that in the last two weeks we have had an announcement from a very small start-up, as well as from Siemens, that aviation is moving in the direction of electrification. So Siemens was the last company that just put out last week that they foresee that ten years from now, they will be having airplanes that are fully electric with clean energy and they will have a thousand-kilometre range.
“So you already have in a very short time span, you already have flights that can be clean, certainly the short flights, and then we have to look at the longer ones. But it is not a question of changing one mobility for another. For the time being if you want to be responsible, yes, definitely go for the mobility with the lowest emissions, but that cannot exempt any sector. Every sector has to bring down its emissions… and aviation is coming!"

David Tattershall replies:

Overall I have great admiration for Figueres in relationship to her objectives and some of the things she has done but having watched this video I now have deep concerns.

In the middle of the interview Nick asked a very important question about airline emissions. Quite frankly the response Figueres gave alarmed me! Rather than deal with reality she puts a positive spin on that situation with the news that in ten years there could be short-haul electric aircraft; after that she implies that long-distance aircraft will be developed. How much time do we have?

Setting the stage for this she has commented that business will act in self-interest rather than be stimulated to save the planet.

And yet, her answer to the airlines emissions problem is completely devoid of any understanding of the airline industry. The business model of the airline industry has critical aspects that contradict her optimism. For instance what about the fleet turnover rate? What about maximizing air time? What about existing, and in the pipeline, efficiency developments that are yet to deliver returns?

At the top end of the industry the fleet turnover average rate is in the high teens [years]. Aircraft are not sent to the scrapheap when replacements are introduced, they are sold down the food chain, and at the bottom of that food chain there are many aircraft over 40 years old. This is one way the low-cost short-haul carriers can make a profit because the invested capital in operational equipment is much lower than at the top end.

Aligned with this reality are the operating characteristics of the major carriers. Their objective is maximum airtime because when equipment is on the ground it is not considered to be in earnings mode: that’s assessed as during flying to destinations. Little can be done to improve the cost from point-to-point, but a lot can be done to improve the cost between flights. Over the last couple of decades, the way flights are scheduled through a sequence has become a major source of increased profitability. UPS knows an awful lot about this and has complex algorithms controlling the entire system.

Short-haul carriers, which would fall into her 1,000-km range, normally have the oldest fleets, and turn-around time is critical. I find it hard to conceive that these operators will convert on the basis of business self-interest, even if the super-capacitor or advanced batteries prove viable.

Developments in weight reduction (particularly carbon-fiber bodies), and thus fuel efficiency for long-haul aircraft, will dovetail, but the inventory of machinery and equipment to produce engines is considerable and writing it off will not be short-term.

For me that interview is more of the same: loaded with wishful and unsubstantiated thinking. Figueres is not short of staff and has access to immense resources. Could she not have asked for an overview of this critical aspect of transitioning? Absent that, it is the usual positive spin based on defining at best a future defined on spurious reasoning.

What are we going to do about the airlines because the situation defined in the attached graphic indicates that absent appropriate action this element alone will take us over the edge!

And, what are we going to do about the oceans? Hopefully Nick can ask her next time he sees her.

Film segment:  https://youtu.be/S0gldKVBSQ8?t=2m7s

http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/202-figueres-copenhagen-paris

Christiana Figueres tells coal executives they must leave it in the ground (in Warsaw at COP19)

Full speech by UN climate chief Christiana Figueres to World Climate and Coal summit in Warsaw

from rtcc.org, November 18, 2013

(Pic: UNFCCC)

Your Excellency, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Honourable Member of the European Parliament, Distinguished Chair of the World Coal Association, Ladies and Gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to address the International Coal and Climate Summit in a frank and honest exchange on the transition to a low-emission economy.

Let me be clear from the outset that my joining you today is neither a tacit approval of coal use, nor a call for the immediate disappearance of coal. But I am here to say that coal must change rapidly and dramatically for everyone’s sake.

There are some who, deeply concerned about the devastating effects of climate change already felt by vulnerable populations around the world, are calling for the immediate shut down of all coal plants. There are others who think that coal does not have to change at all, that we can continue to extract and burn as we have done in the past.

The first view does not take into account the immediate needs of nations looking to provide reliable energy to rapidly growing populations in pursuit of economic development and poverty eradication. The second view does not take into account the immediate need for climate stability on this planet, necessary for the wellbeing of present and future generations.

Today I want to set out an alternative path that is admittedly not easy, but is undoubtedly necessary. That path must acknowledge the past, consider the present and chart a path towards an acceptable future for all. I join you today to discuss this path for two reasons. First, the energy sector is an intrinsic component of a sustainable future. And second, the coal industry must change and you are decision makers who have the knowledge and power to change the way the world uses coal.

The path forward begins in the past, recognizing that coal played a key role in the history of our economic development. From heating to transportation to the provision of electricity, coal has undoubtedly enabled much of our progress over the last 200 years. Coal was at the heart of the developed world’s Industrial Revolution and brought affordable energy to the developing world.

However, while society has benefitted from coal-fuelled development, we now know there is an unacceptably high cost to human and environmental health. The science is clear. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report outlines our predicament. We are at unprecedented GHG concentrations in the atmosphere; our carbon budget is half spent. If we continue to meet energy needs as we have in the past, we will overshoot the internationally agreed goal to limit warming to less than two degree Celsius.

AR5 is not science fiction, it is science fact. AR5 is the overwhelming consensus of 200 lead authors synthesizing the work of 600 scientists who analysed 9000 peer-reviewed publications. AR5 is arguably the most rigorous scientific report ever written. And, the findings of the AR5 have been endorsed by 195 governments, including all of those in which you operate.

There is no doubt that the science is a clarion call for the rapid transformation of the coal industry. Just this morning, more than 25 leading climate and energy scientists from around the world released a clear statement about the need to radically rethink coal’s place in our energy mix.

Considering that coal energy loads the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses, competes for water and impacts public health, the call of science has already been answered by a wide gamut of stakeholders: Students, faith-based organizations and citizens are asking their investment managers to divest from coal and other fossil fuels. Cities choked by air pollution are limiting the burning of coal. Development banks have stopped funding unabated coal.

Commercial financial institutions are analysing the implications of unburnable carbon for their investment strategies. Pricing of GHG emissions is on the rise, evidenced by trading markets coming online around the globe. And, international policy is moving us toward a global low-emission economy. All of this tells me that the coal industry faces a business continuation risk that you can no longer afford to ignore.

Like any other industry, you have a fiduciary responsibility to your workforce and your shareholders. Like any other industry, you are subject to the major political, economic and social shifts of our time. And by now it should be abundantly clear that further capital expenditures on coal can go ahead only if they are compatible with the two degree Celsius limit.

Ladies and gentlemen, the coal industry has the opportunity to be part of the worldwide climate solution by responding proactively to the current paradigm shift. It would be presumptuous of me to put forward a transition plan for coal as you are the repositories of knowledge and experience, and the assets you manage are at stake.

But there are some fundamental parameters of this transition:

-Close all existing subcritical plants;
-Implement safe CCUS on all new plants, even the most efficient;
-Leave most existing reserves in the ground.

These are not marginal or trivial changes, these are transformations that go to the core of the coal industry, and many will say it simply cannot be done. But the phrase “where there’s a will, there’s a way” is tantamount to human history because will precedes innovation, and innovation precedes transformation. John F. Kennedy called for putting man on the moon in ten years at a point when no one knew how that would be done.

We must transform coal with the same determination, the same perseverance, the same will. We must be confident that if we set an ambitious course to low-emissions, science and technology will rapidly transform systems. Above all, you must invest in this potential, because the coal industry has the most to gain by leveraging the existing capital, knowledge and capacity to transform itself. The world is rising to meet the climate challenge as risks of inaction mount, and it is in your best interest to make coal part of the solution. These radical changes have the transformative power to bring coal in line with the direction in which society is moving.

I urge every coal company to honestly assess the financial risks of business as usual; anticipate increasing regulation, growing finance restrictions and diminishing public acceptance; and leverage technology to reduce emissions across the entire coal value chain. You are here today as coal industry leaders, but you can also understand yourselves as long-term energy supply leaders. Some major oil, gas and energy technology companies are already investing in renewables, and I urge those of you who have not yet started to join them.

By diversifying your portfolio beyond coal, you too can produce clean energy that reduces pollution, enhances public health, increases energy security and creates new jobs. By diversifying beyond coal, you reduce the risk of stranded assets and make yourselves ready to reap the rewards of a green economy. By diversifying beyond coal, you can deploy your disciplined, courageous and technically skilled workforce into new renewable energy jobs, transforming your companies from within.

The Warsaw Communique is a first step for change because it shows:

-That the Association accepts climate change as a development risk; and
-That lower coal emissions is an aspirational and realizable goal.

The communique is a first step, but it cannot be the last. I invite you to use this Climate and Coal Summit to decide how you are going to step up to the challenge of contributing to real climate change solutions. We must urgently take the steps that put us on an ambitious path to global peaking by the end of this decade, and zero-net emissions by the second half of the century.

Steps that look past next quarter’s bottom line and see next generation’s bottom line, and steps to figure health, security and sustainability into the bottom line. For it will be your children and my children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren who will look back at today and judge our collective commitment to them.

They must be able to look back and recognize this summit as a historic turning point for the coal industry.

http://www.rtcc.org/2013/11/18/figueres-tells-coal-leave-most-existing-reserves-in-the-ground/

Deborah Phelan: "Bonn Day 4: Agenda Finally Set As Talks Begin"

Bonn Day 4: Agenda Finally Set As Talks Begin

byboatsieforDK GreenRoots

Make no doubt about it. Christina Figueres gets it. In a meeting today with youth activists at the Bonn Climate Talks, the UNFCCC executive secretary reiterated  her clear understanding that climate change is THE primary human rights issue in the world and that science must inform all decisions relative to appropriate action.

Eventually, she said, economists “…need to, have to, reconfigure themselves and get what this is really all about.”

Four days into the Bonn Talks, negotiators finally agreed on an agenda, amidst mounting pressure to reach common ground to extend the Kyoto  Protocol -- currently the only treaty which caps GHGs beyond 2012 -- at the November 28-December 9 COP17 in Durban, SA.

Under Kyoto, the EU along with 35 other nations formally agreed to 5.2% reductions of GHGs from 1990 levels by 2012. The United States did not ratify Kyoto, and Japan, Russia and Canada last year announced their unwillingness to sign on to a Phase II unless all major economies ratify the treaty.  

Figueres suggested Tuesday the worst case scenario might be a gap between rounds one and two of Kyoto, most likely due to insufficient time and the apparently implacable policies of some of the industrialized countries, which continue to thwart the successful negotiation of a solution by 2012. Under the Copenhagen Accord, a 2013-2015 review -- also approved in the Cancun Agreements --  was accepted by the plenary to evaluate  whether the global 2 °C goal is adequate, or if it should be decreased to 1.5.

At the conclusion of today's talks, Ambassador Argüello of Argentina and Chairman of the Group of 77, expressed his eagerness to get down to the formal business of mapping out the agreements for adoption at the upcoming talks in Durban.

"At this point, this is a two-track negotiation where the progress in one track necessarily affects progress in the other," he said. "We cannot go home empty-handed. We are doing everything in our power to ensure that the political conditions for a meaningful second commitment period are there, and hope all actors are doing the same."

Stating that the sense of urgency is contributing to the slowness of the process in that it is causing some inflexibility among delegates who sense this is the final opportunity "to promote interests that are vital to them," Argüello said, "there is a real will at least from the Group of 77 and China, to complete the mandate we have and to extend the international climate regime for the next five years, including a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol with binding obligations of high levels of ambition that can actually move us to our goal ... We need definitions, people want to know whether the important issues are on the table, or not."

More at this link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/09/983639/-Bonn-Day-4:-Fossil-Fool-CanadaWorst-Country-in-the-World

  

UNFCCC Secretary Christiana Figueres meets with Adopt A Negotiator Trackers at COP16

UNFCCC Secretary Christiana Figueres meets with Adopt A Negotiator Trackers at COP16, December 4, 2010



Partial transcript:

It’s you. It’s the next generation. Look: We’re doing this, but this has nothing to do with us. It’s all about you. It’s all about you. We’re the ones that have caused the problem, but you’re the ones that are going to have to pay for it, right? The fact is, I’m the mother of two women about your age, and I realized many years ago that I had inherited a planet that was a diminished planet. And that if I didn’t do something about it, my daughters would grow up in a planet that had been severely diminished by what we’re doing. And I just can’t look at my daughters in the eyes and not do whatever I can.

So, it’s you. It’s about the kind of planet that you’re going to have. It’s honestly not my planet. It’s yours, okay? We borrowed it from you for a few minutes. But you will take it over very soon, because it’s yours. And you’re going to have to give it over to your children.

Honestly, there’s no perfect job here, okay? Nothing that we are going to do in Cancun is going to be perfect. Don’t expect perfection. Nothing is going to be highly ambitious. Nothing. Everything here is going to be one step, and everything is going to be insufficient. But it is the best that this group of people in these circumstances, with these political constraints, in this economic environment, can do for the time being. And as soon as this finishes we have to start pushing for the next step. And so it goes. But each one of us that is here has the moral responsibility to do the absolute best that we can at that moment under those circumstances. So what inspires me? It’s you.

Link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzOwjFYXG4I