Yes, it is. Scientific evidence for rapid climate change is unequivocal.

While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."

Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate. From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of a warming planet abounds.

Continue reading: Climate.gov, NASA Evidence, UKRI

Weather and climate aren't the same thing, and you can still expect harsh winter storms in a warming world.

Climate is defined as the average weather patterns in a region over a long period of time. It's the difference between Europe's temperate Mediterranean zones versus the harsh, cold conditions of the Arctic tundra. Each of these climate regions experiences day-to-day fluctuations in temperature, precipitation, air pressure, and so on—daily variations known as weather. Climate change is disrupting these predictable fluctuations, creating new climates that are warmer on average and more unpredictable.

Global warming is a long-term trend, but that does not mean that every year will be warmer than the previous one. Day to day and year to year changes in weather patterns will continue to produce some unusually cold days and nights, and winters and summers, even as the climate warms.

Scientists believe Earth will experience more extreme, disastrous weather as the effects of climate change play out. The Arctic is warming, on average, four times faster than the rest of the planet, an effect called Arctic amplification. Scientists think this uneven rate of warming is weakening the polar jet stream—the band of air circling the Arctic that typically keeps Arctic air in northern regions—allowing frigid air to more easily dip into the South.

Record cold temperatures and blizzards aren't the only extreme weather patterns expected. As the jet stream slows, floods could last longer and droughts may become more persistent.

Continue reading: National Geographic

No. In fact, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists, about 97 percent, agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.

Continue reading: NASA Science

No, earth's orbital fluctuations cannot explain current climate change.

Milankovitch cycles include the shape of Earth’s orbit (its eccentricity), the angle that Earth’s axis is tilted with respect to Earth’s orbital plane (its obliquity), and the direction that Earth’s spin axis is pointed (its precession). These cycles affect the amount of sunlight and therefore, energy, that Earth absorbs from the Sun. They provide a strong framework for understanding long-term changes in Earth’s climate, including the beginning and end of Ice Ages throughout Earth’s history.

But Milankovitch cycles can’t explain all climate change that’s occurred over the past 2.5 million years or so. And more importantly, they cannot account for the current period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th century. Scientists are confident Earth’s recent warming is primarily due to human activities — specifically, the direct input of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.

Continue reading: NASA Science, Space.com

No, solar cycles cannot explain current climate change.

The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet.

A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”

Continue reading: NASA Science, Climate.gov

No, climate change cannot be attributed to water vapour.

It's true that carbon dioxide is not the most important greenhouse gas affecting the Earth’s temperature. That distinction belongs to water. We can thank water vapor for about half of the greenhouse effect keeping heat from the sun inside our atmosphere. It’s the most important greenhouse gas in our climate system, because of its relatively high concentrations. It can vary from almost nothing to as much as 3% of a volume of air. Compare that to CO2, which today makes up about 420 parts per million of our atmosphere (0.04%) — and you can see immediately why water vapor is such a linchpin of our climate system.

So why do we never hear climate scientists raising the alarm about our “water emissions”? It’s not because humans don’t put water into the atmosphere. Even the exhaust coming from a coal power plant—the classic example of a climate-warming greenhouse gas emission—contains almost as much water vapor as CO2.2 It’s why that exhaust forms a visible cloud. But water vapor differs in one crucial way from other greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Those greenhouse gases are always gases (at least when they’re in our atmosphere). Water isn’t.

Water can turn from a gas to a liquid at temperatures and pressures very common in our atmosphere, and so it frequently does. When it’s colder it falls from the air as rain or snow; when it’s hotter it evaporates and rises up as a gas again. This process is so rapid that, on average, a molecule of water resides in the atmosphere for only about two weeks. This means extra water we put into the atmosphere simply doesn’t stick around long enough to alter the climate; you don’t have to worry about warming the Earth every time you boil a kettle. And there’s really no amount of water vapor we could emit that would change this.

Continue reading: MIT, NASA Science

Climate change is not a future problem, it’s here and now.

We are experiencing more frequent and intense extreme weather events - stronger storms, rising floods, unprecedented heatwaves, and withering droughts – we are no longer talking about the future impacts of climate change it is already impacting the lives of billions, particularly the world’s poorest who have contributed the least to it.

The IPCC report on climate change warns that between 3.3 and 3.6 billion people live in areas that are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It reports that between 2010 and 2020, 15 times more people died from floods, droughts, and storms in regions that live in highly vulnerable areas, compared to other parts of the world. The percentage of the population exposed to what the IPCC calls ‘deadly heat stress’ is projected to increase from today’s 30 per cent to up to nearly 80 per cent by the end of the century, depending on future warming.

The IPCC has warned, “any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future”.

Continue reading: Red Cross

The typical arguments presented to say climate change is good are: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity.

Yes, there will probably be some short-term and long-term benefits from global warming. For example, the flip side of increased mortality from heat waves may be decreased mortality from cold waves. In the short term, farmers in some regions may benefit from the earlier onset of spring and from a longer warm season that is suitable for growing crops. Also, studies show that, up to a certain point, crops and other plants grow better in the presence of higher carbon dioxide levels and seem to be more drought-tolerant.

So, certainly it's true that a warmer world could benefit certain people, species, regions and industries – at least for a period. However, any such benefits need to be seen in the context of a number of serious and widespread negative consequences that scientists have warned the world to expect: things such as rising sea levels, an increase in the number of people exposed to devastating droughts and floods, and a potentially massive increase in extinction rates.

Of course, any comparison of specific positive and negative impacts is complicated by the fact that the effects of climate change will vary according to both location and time. For example, the science suggests that global agricultural productivity may increase during the first three degrees Celsius of warming, driven by gains in relatively wealthy high-latitude regions. During that time, however, productivity looks likely to fall in the poorer tropical areas, followed by a drop in global food production if the temperature warms by more than 3C – something that could be expected to put a huge strain on a world population expected to exceed nine billion by the end of the century.

Continue reading: The Guardian, Climate.gov

Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has changed the earth’s climate. Natural processes, such as changes in the sun's energy and volcanic eruptions, also affect the earth's climate. However, they do not explain the warming that we have observed over the last century.

Scientists have pieced together a record of the earth’s climate by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate, such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun. This record shows that the climate varies naturally over a wide range of time scales, but this variability does not explain the observed warming since the 1950s. Rather, it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming. Human activities have contributed substantially to climate change through: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reflectivity or Absorption of the Sun’s Energy.

Concentrations of the key greenhouse gases have all increased since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide concentrations are now more abundant in the earth’s atmosphere than any time in the last 800,000 years.5 These greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused the earth’s surface temperature to rise.

Continue reading: EPA

Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions.

Since preindustrial times, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by over 40%, methane has increased by more than 150%, and nitrous oxide has increased by roughly 20%. More than half of the increase in carbon dioxide has occurred since 1970. Increases in all three gases contribute to warming of Earth, with the increase in carbon dioxide playing the largest role.

Continue reading: United Nations, EPA

Renewable energy is cheaper than new and existing fossil fuels plants.

The IEA reported that in 2023, an estimated 96% of newly installed, utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind capacity had lower generation costs than new coal and natural gas. Three-quarters of these new wind and solar PV plants offered cheaper power than existing fossil fuel facilities. The good news is that renewable energy is only set to get even more affordable from here on out. As renewable energy continues to get cheaper year-on-year, fossil fuels are actually getting more expensive. The price of fuel, for example, has jumped in the past three years – which is due, in part, to the rise of wholesale price and the war in Ukraine.

Experts are suggesting that switching to renewables can help the global economy, especially following increases in inflation. In fact, a 2022 study from Oxford University found that switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world as much as $12 trillion (£10.2 trillion) by 2050.

Continue reading: Eco Experts

In our opinion, this is a valid concern which the renewable energy industry is working continuously to solve. Energy reliability is the ability of a power system to withstand instability, uncontrolled events, cascading failures, or unanticipated loss of system components.

One way to think about reliability is to not think of renewable energy as one unit, but tied together by multiple sources. For example, when a wind farm cannot operate due to low wind speeds, an adjacent biomass plant can compensate for the lost capacity in the meantime. Or, a solar farm is constructed near a hydro plant, where they work in tandem to meet the energy demands of their respective region. When we stop thinking about renewable energy as individual modes of electricity generation working independently of each other, and instead see them as a holistic force, then we can determine that renewable energy is indeed reliable. However, there are added capital costs in this.

Energy storage technologies can ensure energy reliability by storing renewable energy for use whenever it is needed, such as during a power outage. Various technologies enable energy to be harnessed and stored for later use. Pumped storage hydropower is responsible for most U.S. commercial energy storage capacity and has been used for more than 100 years. Wind and solar energy can be captured and stored for later use with batteries, and researchers are investigating geothermal energy storage.

Timely development of a long-duration energy-storage (LDES) market with government support would enable the energy system to function smoothly with a large share of power coming from renewables, and would thus make a substantial contribution to decarbonizing the economy. LDES encompasses a group of conventional and novel technologies, including mechanical, thermal, electrochemical, and chemical storage, that can be deployed competitively to store energy for prolonged periods and scaled up economically to sustain electricity provision, for days or even weeks. The various novel LDES technologies are at different levels of maturity and market readiness, but they are attracting unprecedented interest from governments, utilities, and transmission operators, and investment in the sector is rising fast.

Continue reading: McKinsey, Inspire Clean Energy

The size of Earth’s atmosphere relative to Earth is the same as the skin of an Apple relative to the Apple.

Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, with a mass only about one-millionth that of the planet itself. Further, about 80 percent of the atmosphere is contained within its lowest layer, the troposphere, which is, on average, just 12 kilometers thick.

While there’s no exact boundary line between the atmosphere and space, the accepted standard is about 100 kilometers above Earth’s surface. If you drove that distance on the ground, you might see a change in scenery. But travel that distance straight up, and you’ll quickly find yourself in an environment inhospitable to life. At about 8 kilometers altitude, there’s insufficient oxygen in the air to sustain human life. At around 19 kilometers altitude, your blood boils unless you’re in a pressurized environment.

Continue reading: NASA Science

By volume, the dry air in Earth’s atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon.

A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately 0.04 percent, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Yet while these greenhouse gases make up just a tiny percentage of our atmosphere, they play major roles in trapping Earth’s radiant heat and keeping it from escaping into space, thereby warming our planet and contributing to Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The largest greenhouse gas by volume is actually the one most people tend to overlook: water vapor, whose concentration varies significantly depending on temperature. As the temperature of the atmosphere increases, the amount of humidity in the atmosphere also goes up, further heating our planet in a vicious cycle.

Tiny solid or liquid particles known as aerosols, which are produced both naturally and by human activities, are also present in variable amounts, along with human-produced industrial pollutants and natural and human-produced sulfur compounds.

Continue reading: NOAA, NASA Science

Greenhouse gases vary in not only their sources and the measures needed to control them, but also in how intensely they trap solar heat (their "radiative efficiency"), how long they last once they’re in the atmosphere (their "lifetime"), and how they react with other gases and ultimately get flushed out of the air. Some of the effects of greenhouse gases can persist for centuries, even after the gases that initially triggered those changes are no longer being emitted at all.

For example, compared to carbon dioxide, CFCs can produce more than 10,000 times as much warming, pound for pound, once they are in the air. Fortunately, CFCs were banned by an international agreement called the Montreal Protocol in 1987 — not because of their dramatic warming potential, although that was a secondary reason recognized at the time, but because they were found to be the primary cause of the rapidly escalating destruction of the Earth’s ozone layer, which protects the planet from dangerous, cancer-causing levels of ultraviolet radiation. CFCs would be a major player by now in contributing to global warming if they hadn’t been phased out.

The usual way of comparing greenhouse gases is through a single conversion factor, called the global warming potential. There’s no question that carbon dioxide is the biggest contributor to human-caused climate change, so that’s the big focus of mitigation efforts. But there are a number of others that are also significant, including methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases.

In 2022, US GHG emissions comprised 79.7% carbon-dioxide, 11.1% methane, 6.1% nitrous oxide, and 3.1% of fluorinated gases.

Continue reading: EPA, MIT, UCAR

The albedo effect, a key concept in climate discussions, manifests in diverse forms such as surface, planetary, and spectral albedo. It's essentially about how well the Earth reflects sunlight, a trait that varies dramatically across different surfaces. High-albedo surfaces like ice are great reflectors, sending most sunlight back into space, while low-albedo surfaces like oceans absorb more solar energy. Historically, a stable global albedo has been indicative of a stable global climate. This delicate balance is critical: a shift in either global climate or albedo can influence the other. Importantly, this interplay can lead to feedback loops.

Activities such as agriculture, road construction, and deforestation can change the reflectivity of the earth's surface, leading to local warming or cooling. This effect is observed in heat islands, which are urban centers that are warmer than the surrounding, less populated areas. One reason that these areas are warmer is that buildings, pavement, and roofs tend to reflect less sunlight than natural surfaces. While deforestation can increase the earth’s reflectivity globally by replacing dark trees with lighter surfaces such as crops, the net effect of all land-use changes appears to be a small cooling.

Emissions of small particles, known as aerosols, into the air can also lead to reflection or absorption of the sun's energy. Many types of air pollutants undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere to create aerosols. Overall, human-generated aerosols have a net cooling effect on the earth.

Continue reading: EPA, Greenly Institute

In the worst-case scenarios in scientists’ climate models, human-caused climate change is a threat to the continued existence of many species and to human society as we know it. If humans do nothing to slow climate change, then global temperatures may increase by 4.5 degrees Celsius or more by the year 2100. This may not sound like much, but it is quite cataclysmic. Earth has not been that warm in millions of years, and such temperature spikes in our planet’s history are connected to mass extinction events that killed off a large percentage of species that existed at the time. It has been called an existential threat.

That more literal-minded reading of the phrase “existential threat” may not be the best reflection of the risks of climate change, however. Even under our most dire predictions, human society is still around. But there are going to be unavoidable consequences, and disasters especially for coastal communities, coastal cities, and island nations.

Even if humanity does reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to stave off the worst effects of climate change — and learn to adapt to some warming that is already inevitable - climate change still threatens to eradicate a host of human cultures, traditions, and languages. One example is the Inuit peoples who are indigenous to Arctic regions, and whose cold-weather culture is under threat as the amount of ice in polar regions continues to decline. Residents of low-lying islands face an immediate, existential threat to their cultures as rising sea levels could submerge their homelands.

Continue reading: MIT Climate

Since 1751 the world has emitted over 1.5 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide. One common argument is that those countries which have added most to the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere – contributing most to the problem today – should take on the greatest responsibility in tackling it.

The United States has emitted more carbon dioxide than any other country to date: at around 400 billion tonnes since 1751, it is responsible for 25% of historical emissions; this is twice more than China – the world’s second largest national contributor. The 28 countries of the European Union (EU-28) – which are grouped together here as they typically negotiate and set targets on a collaborative basis – is also a large historical contributor at 22%. Many of the large annual emitters today – such as India and Brazil – are not large contributors in a historical context. Africa’s regional contribution – relative to its population size – has been very small. This is the result of very low per capita emissions – both historically and currently.

Up until 1950, more than half of historical carbon dioxide emissions were emitted by Europe. The vast majority of European emissions back then were emitted by the United Kingdom; as the data shows, until 1882 more than half of the world’s cumulative emissions came from the UK alone.

When we look at emissions across the world today, the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today. The UK, for example, was responsible for only 1% of global emissions in 2017. Reductions here will have a relatively small impact on emissions at the global level – or at least fall far short of the scale of change we need. This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.

This inequality is one of the main reasons which makes international agreement on who should take action so challenging.

Continue reading: Our World in Data (with graphs)

Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at a time when they need to be rapidly falling. To effectively reduce emissions, we need to know where they come from – which sectors contribute the most?

Electricity and heat production are the largest contributors to global GHG emissions. This is followed by transport, manufacturing, construction (largely cement and similar materials), and agriculture. But this is not the same everywhere. If we look at the United States, for example, transport is a much larger contributor than the global average. In Brazil, most GHG emissions come from agriculture and land use change. The global breakdown for carbon dioxide is similar to that of total greenhouse gases.

Continue reading: Our World in Data (with graphs), EPA

Businesses often speak about becoming carbon neutral. This means they’re taking steps to remove the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide to what’s emitted through activities across their supply chains, by investing in ‘carbon sinks’ that absorb carbon dioxide. Carbon sinks, such as forests or our oceans, absorb and store more carbon from the atmosphere than they emit. Investment into their health is called ‘offsetting’ and allows companies to operate in good conscience, knowing their emissions are balanced out. Many companies begin this process by cutting down their carbon dioxide emissions as much as possible first, before investing in highly-visible offset programmes.

Net zero is similar in principle to carbon neutrality, but is expanded in scale. To achieve net zero means to go beyond the removal of just carbon emissions. Net zero refers to all greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere, such as methane, nitrous oxide and other hydrofluorocarbons. As with carbon neutrality, to reach net zero the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere must be equivalent to the greenhouse gases being removed from the atmosphere. Action to reach net zero is happening on a global scale, but requires the collaboration of world governments, as well as private and third sectors. Research has shown that carbon neutrality is good for businesses in the long run. Achieving it not only allows businesses to save on costs through better operational efficiencies and tax reductions, but it also helps protect the natural environment for all stakeholders necessary for it to succeed.

Continue reading: National Grid

Climate change is not the first planetary pollution crisis we have faced. That distinction belongs to the depletion of the earth’s protective ozone layer. As we struggle to curb the carbon pollution that’s driving climate change, it’s worth remembering, and learning from, our success in solving the ozone crisis.

Thirty-two years ago, countries signed the world’s most successful environmental treaty, the Montreal Protocol. That’s the treaty that saved the ozone layer, saved millions of lives, and avoided a global catastrophe. We too often take the rescue of the ozone layer for granted. A whole generation has grown up not hearing much about it, except maybe once each September when the return of the Antarctic ozone hole gets a brief mention in the news.

The Montreal Protocol stands out as proof positive that the earth’s nearly 200 countries can effectively cooperate to protect their citizens from a planetary pollution crisis — address climate change as well as ozone depletion. We saved the ozone layer. We can save the climate.

Continue reading: NRDC

Carbon budgets offer a way to benchmark the progress of governments in meeting their climate goals. Carbon budgets measure how much carbon dioxide is produced by industry, homes and all other parts of the economy to calculate by how much emissions must be cut in the future. The aim is to reach net-zero emissions – striking an equal balance between the carbon released into the atmosphere and that removed from it.

In the Paris Agreement, the world set the goal of keeping the global average temperature rise “well below 2°C” and “pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C.” Our global efforts are now measured against these targets of 1.5°C and 2°C. Pathways are assessed on whether they are ‘on track’ to meet these commitments.

For a 50% chance of limiting temperatures to 1.5°C, we could emit a further 250 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. But there would still be a 50% chance that we go over this target. If we wanted to be risk-averse – and have an 83% chance of staying below – the world can only emit 100 billion tonnes. What’s clear is how small our remaining budget for 1.5°C is. The world emitted 41 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2022. To have a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°C, we can only emit 250 billion tonnes. That’s just six years of our current emissions.

The budget for 2°C is significantly larger. For a 50% chance, the world could emit 1150 billion tonnes. That’s around 28 years of current emissions.4 For a two-thirds chance, it’s 23 years. That might seem more achievable, but the world is currently not on track to achieve this. Current policies have us on course for around 2.5°C of warming. The world needs to reduce emissions much faster to keep temperatures below 2°C.

Continue reading: Our World in Data

To tackle climate change and its negative impacts, world leaders at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris reached a breakthrough on 12 December 2015: the historic Paris Agreement. The Agreement is a legally binding international treaty. It entered into force on 4 November 2016. Today, 195 Parties (194 States plus the European Union) have joined the Paris Agreement. The Agreement includes commitments from all countries to reduce their emissions and work together to adapt to the impacts of climate change, and calls on countries to strengthen their commitments over time.

The Agreement sets long-term goals to guide all nations to: substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to hold global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; periodically assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of this agreement and its long-term goals; and provide financing to developing countries to mitigate climate change, strengthen resilience and enhance abilities to adapt to climate impacts.

The Paris Agreement works on a five- year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. Every five years, each country is expected to submit an updated national climate action plan - known as Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC. In their NDCs, countries communicate actions they will take to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement.

In 2023, the first “global stocktake” of the world’s efforts under the Paris Agreement concluded at COP28 with a decision on how to accelerate action across all areas – mitigation, adaptation, and finance – by 2030, including a call on governments to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy such as wind and solar power in their next round of climate commitments. To better frame the efforts towards the long-term goal, the Paris Agreement invites countries to formulate and submit long-term strategies. Unlike NDCs, they are not mandatory.

Continue reading: United Nations

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the international body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The main activity of the IPCC is the preparation of reports assessing the state of knowledge of climate change. These include assessment reports, special reports and methodology reports.

IPCC assessments provide a scientific basis for governments at all levels to develop climate related policies, and they underlie negotiations at the UN Climate Conference – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The assessments are policy-relevant but not policyprescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.

IPCC assessments are written by hundreds of leading scientists who volunteer their time and expertise as Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors of the reports. They enlist hundreds of other experts as Contributing Authors to provide complementary expertise in specific areas. The authors may work with Chapter Scientists who cross-check between findings presented in different parts of the report, carry out additional fact-checking, and work on reference management among other things. Chapter Scientists are usually early career scientists. IPCC reports undergo multiple rounds of drafting and review to ensure they are comprehensive and objective and produced in an open and transparent way. Thousands of other experts contribute to the reports by acting as reviewers, ensuring the reports reflect the full range of views in the scientific community.

The latest report is the Sixth Assessment Report which consists of three Working Group contributions and a Synthesis Report. The Working Group I contribution was finalized in August 2021, the Working Group II contribution in February 2022, the Working Group III contribution in April 2022 and the Synthesis Report in March 2023.

Continue reading: IPCC, IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

In pursuit of net zero, the United States passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022. In coming years, the IRA will direct nearly $400 billion in federal funding toward clean energy, with the goal of substantially lowering the nation’s carbon emissions by 2030—and reinvigorating America’s global economic competitiveness, innovation, and industrial productivity. The funds will be delivered through a mix of tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees. Clean electricity and transmission command the biggest slice, followed by clean transportation, including electric-vehicle (EV) incentives.

The US Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office will receive roughly $12 billion to expand its existing loan authority by tenfold and create a new loan program capped at $250 billion to upgrade, repurpose, or replace energy infrastructure.

The majority of the $394 billion in energy and climate funding is in the form of tax credits. Corporations are the biggest recipient, with an estimated $216 billion worth of tax credits. These are designed to catalyze private investment in clean energy, transport, and manufacturing. Many of the tax incentives in the bill are direct pay, meaning that an entity can claim the full amount even if its tax liability is less than the credit.

Some $43 billion in IRA tax credits aim to lower emissions by making EVs, energy-efficient appliances, rooftop solar panels, geothermal heating, and home batteries more affordable. Starting in 2023, qualifying EVs will be eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500 and $4,000 for new and used vehicles, respectively. Qualifying home improvements will be eligible for a tax credit of up to 30 percent of the total cost, capped at $1,200 per year. For heat pumps, the credit is capped at $2,000 per year.

Continue reading: McKinsey