I don’t have anything to say right now about the flooding in Texas. But I am watching, and learning, and paying attention to various sources.
But, for now, you’ve got to see this:
I don’t have anything to say right now about the flooding in Texas. But I am watching, and learning, and paying attention to various sources.
But, for now, you’ve got to see this:
Editor's note: We received word late this afternoon that ESA's Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Programme office will sponsor a European team to join an airborne observation campaign to track and observe the reentry of WT1190F, an unidentified object thought to be a discarded rocket body. It is forecast to enter Earth's atmosphere high above the Indian Ocean on 13 November. Here is a short update from Dr Stefan Löhle, lead scientist on the University of Stuttgart team that will conduct the observations.
Two researchers from the High Enthalpy Flow Diagnostics Group (HEFDiG), Institute of Space Systems, University of Stuttgart, Germany, will participate in an airborne observation campaign to track and record the reentry of the unknown object dubbed WTF1190F, expected to reenter over the Indian Ocean at 06:19 GMT (11:49 local; 07:19 CET) on 13 November 2015.
Dr Stefan Löhle and Dr Fabian Zander, both experienced researchers in optical diagnostics of aero-thermodynamic phenomena, will deploy their instruments on board an aircraft that will observe WTF1190F reentry. ESA is sponsoring this mission, which will complement other space- and ground-based observation efforts and is expected to provide valuable data on reentry physics.
WT1190F seen from ground. The object was observed by B. Bolin, R. Jedicke and M. Micheli from the University of Arizona in their Catalina Sky
Survey Program.
Object WTF1190F was observed by B. Bolin, R. Jedicke and M. Micheli via the University of Arizona's Catalina Sky Survey Program (red arrow in the image).
It is not yet known what the object is, exactly. From its behaviour, it can be surmised that, due to its low density, it is possibly hollow and thus probably a man-made piece of space junk. The size is approximately 2 m. From analysis performed so far, it is thought that object will enter (i.e. re-enter) the Earth's atmosphere on 13 November 2015, around mid-day, with an entry velocity of about 11 km/s. The entry interface angle is predicted to be 30°.
Thus, a very steep, high-speed entry is expected, so that most probably the object will be destroyed in the upper atmospheric layers.
The interest in observing such objects is, on the one hand, that this could serve as a 'test case' for future asteroid entries, and, on the other hand, the data collected can be used to improve our understanding of space debris behavior.
In the past, the University of Stuttgart's HEFDiG group has participated in the airborne observations of Hayabusa (2010) and ESA's ATV-1 (2008). Most recently, Stefan was the science team lead in the mission to observe the re-entry of the last ATV, Georges Lemaître, which was cancelled due to technical issues and which was a joint ESA-NASA activity.
The Gulfstream 450 business jet to be deployed for the observation. Image courtesy M. Shawkat Odeh
The WT1190F observation mission will be conducted from a Gulfstream 450 business jet, sponsored by United Arab Emirates and coordinated by Mohammad Shawkat Odeh from the International Astronomical Center, Abu Dhabi. There are only five windows available to observe the object. The observation teams Comprise:
The goal of the observations is to acquire video sufficiently resolved to provide data for modelling this reentry, which will then be used to improve our understanding of the reentry physics of space debris.
At the Institute of Space Systems in Stuttgart, HEFDiG routinely simulates these processes in ground-testing facilities, and so getting live data would be very helpful for improving these efforts.
Experimental set up of HEFDiG in the laboratory in Stuttgart. L: Dr S. Loehle, R: Dr F. Zander. Image courtesy S. Loehle
The system we have foreseen (the laboratory installation is seen above) is a combination of video imaging and high-resolution spectroscopy in visible wavelengths using a fibre-fed Echelle spectrograph. It will be a very challenging endeavour, because the reentry will last, perhaps, not much longer than 8 seconds.
WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO AN EXCITING TRIP!
Editor's note: We received word late this afternoon that ESA's Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Programme office will sponsor a European team to join an airborne observation campaign to track and observe the reentry of WT1190F, an unidentified object thought to be a discarded rocket body. It is forecast to enter Earth's atmosphere high above the Indian Ocean on 13 November. Here is a short update from Dr Stefan Löhle, lead scientist on the University of Stuttgart team that will conduct the observations.
Two researchers from the High Enthalpy Flow Diagnostics Group (HEFDiG), Institute of Space Systems, University of Stuttgart, Germany, will participate in an airborne observation campaign to track and record the reentry of the unknown object dubbed WTF1190F, expected to reenter over the Indian Ocean at 06:19 GMT (11:49 local; 07:19 CET) on 13 November 2015.
Dr Stefan Löhle and Dr Fabian Zander, both experienced researchers in optical diagnostics of aero-thermodynamic phenomena, will deploy their instruments on board an aircraft that will observe WTF1190F reentry. ESA is sponsoring this mission, which will complement other space- and ground-based observation efforts and is expected to provide valuable data on reentry physics.
WT1190F seen from ground. The object was observed by B. Bolin, R. Jedicke and M. Micheli from the University of Arizona in their Catalina Sky
Survey Program.
Object WTF1190F was observed by B. Bolin, R. Jedicke and M. Micheli via the University of Arizona's Catalina Sky Survey Program (red arrow in the image).
It is not yet known what the object is, exactly. From its behaviour, it can be surmised that, due to its low density, it is possibly hollow and thus probably a man-made piece of space junk. The size is approximately 2 m. From analysis performed so far, it is thought that object will enter (i.e. re-enter) the Earth's atmosphere on 13 November 2015, around mid-day, with an entry velocity of about 11 km/s. The entry interface angle is predicted to be 30°.
Thus, a very steep, high-speed entry is expected, so that most probably the object will be destroyed in the upper atmospheric layers.
The interest in observing such objects is, on the one hand, that this could serve as a 'test case' for future asteroid entries, and, on the other hand, the data collected can be used to improve our understanding of space debris behavior.
In the past, the University of Stuttgart's HEFDiG group has participated in the airborne observations of Hayabusa (2010) and ESA's ATV-1 (2008). Most recently, Stefan was the science team lead in the mission to observe the re-entry of the last ATV, Georges Lemaître, which was cancelled due to technical issues and which was a joint ESA-NASA activity.
The Gulfstream 450 business jet to be deployed for the observation. Image courtesy M. Shawkat Odeh
The WT1190F observation mission will be conducted from a Gulfstream 450 business jet, sponsored by United Arab Emirates and coordinated by Mohammad Shawkat Odeh from the International Astronomical Center, Abu Dhabi. There are only five windows available to observe the object. The observation teams Comprise:
The goal of the observations is to acquire video sufficiently resolved to provide data for modelling this reentry, which will then be used to improve our understanding of the reentry physics of space debris.
At the Institute of Space Systems in Stuttgart, HEFDiG routinely simulates these processes in ground-testing facilities, and so getting live data would be very helpful for improving these efforts.
Experimental set up of HEFDiG in the laboratory in Stuttgart. L: Dr S. Loehle, R: Dr F. Zander. Image courtesy S. Loehle
The system we have foreseen (the laboratory installation is seen above) is a combination of video imaging and high-resolution spectroscopy in visible wavelengths using a fibre-fed Echelle spectrograph. It will be a very challenging endeavour, because the reentry will last, perhaps, not much longer than 8 seconds.
WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO AN EXCITING TRIP!
Show us how you celebrate Halloween using STEM! Carve science themed pumpkins, create gooey spooky experiments or dress up as your favorite Mad Scientist! Have fun with your STEMtastic creations!
How do you enter? It’s easy! From now until Halloween night, just post pictures of your activity or creation onTwitter, Instagram and/or on our Facebook wall and use #ScifestBoo! (Be sure to tag us)
Contest is open to groups and individuals (ages 5-18). Note: Parents and teachers can post on behalf of children.
Show us how you celebrate Halloween using STEM! Carve science themed pumpkins, create gooey spooky experiments or dress up as your favorite Mad Scientist! Have fun with your STEMtastic creations!
How do you enter? It’s easy! From now until Halloween night, just post pictures of your activity or creation onTwitter, Instagram and/or on our Facebook wall and use #ScifestBoo! (Be sure to tag us)
Contest is open to groups and individuals (ages 5-18). Note: Parents and teachers can post on behalf of children.
When it comes to immunization rates in the United States, the story is a mixed one. Among children, we’ve absolutely excelled. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers the nation’s childhood vaccination rate as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. But when it comes to American adults — 50,000 of whom die every year from vaccine-preventable diseases — it’s a very different story.
Earlier this year, CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report reported that uptake of recommended adult immunizations remains low and is far below Healthy People 2020 targets. (Healthy People 2020 sets the nation’s health objectives for the current decade.) In analyzing data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, researchers found that just more than 17 percent of adults received a tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (Tdap) vaccine; 24.2 percent received a vaccine against shingles; just 5.9 percent of young men received a human papillomavirus vaccine; and about 21 percent of adults at high risk received a pneumococcal vaccine. During the 2014-2015 influenza season, adult flu immunization rates did go up by 1.4 percent, but the overall rate was still below 50 percent.
The low rates not only mean many adults remain susceptible to preventable diseases, but that they risk transmitting often dangerous diseases to particularly vulnerable populations, such as very young children, the elderly and those with impaired immune systems. And consider this: The flu alone costs the U.S. billions of dollars in medical care and lost productivity.
These less-than-ideal adult vaccination rates have attracted the attention and action of health professionals for quite some time. However, in September at a briefing in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., a new coalition of stakeholders from across the health care system officially declared its intention to take up the issue of adult immunizations in earnest and facilitate new solutions to strengthen and enhance access to adult vaccines. Known as the Adult Vaccine Access Coalition (AVAC), the group’s diverse members include health care providers, pharmacists, public health organizations, vaccine makers, and patient and consumer groups. Among its many member groups are the American Public Health Association, American Pharmacists Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The coalition’s policy priorities are three-fold: improving adult immunization data collection; establishing new benchmarks to measure and encourage progress; and advocating for initiatives that boost adult vaccine rates among the most vulnerable and begin to close racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake. Laura Hanen, co-chair of the new coalition and chief of government affairs at the National Association of County and City Health Officials, said the coalition is an opportunity to bring all the stakeholders together and channel relevant resources and skills toward one overriding goal.
“We’ve all been working on this issue in our individual lanes, whether it’s public health groups, health care providers, pharmacists,” Hanen told me. “Now we’re coming together to create collective leverage and build more understanding and awareness around the barriers to adult immunization and try to address it in the post-Affordable Care Act era.”
So why are adult vaccine rates so low? Especially when the U.S. has made such great strides in childhood vaccination coverage. As with most public health conundrums, there are many contributors, but Hanen pointed to a few big ones. Among them are provider and patient awareness. Recommended adult vaccination schedules are not necessarily easy to understand — different vaccines are recommended for different age groups and for people with particular health issues and susceptibilities. It can be “incredibly complicated,” Hanen noted.
Cost and financial reimbursement for adult immunizations have also traditionally been barriers, she said, though new ACA provisions will likely reduce those hurdles. (Under the health reform law, adults who purchase insurance through the new insurance marketplace are entitled to Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-recommended vaccines with no cost-sharing.) Hanen also added that geographic challenges play a role, noting that not all providers carry the full spectrum of recommended adult vaccines.
Another big contributor, she told me, is that unlike childhood vaccines, there’s no nationwide infrastructure and support system in place devoted to increasing adult vaccine rates. For children, there’s the national Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines at no cost to children whose families may not otherwise be able to afford the life-saving drugs. There’s the Section 317 Immunization Program, a federally funded initiative that provides vaccines to uninsured and underinsured kids and adults; there’s school vaccine requirements; and there’s comprehensive reporting of child immunizations to public health agencies so officials can identify gaps and areas of need. In other words, there’s an entire system built to ensure children are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases — and that system has worked incredibly well. Sadly, that’s simply not the case with adults.
Fortunately, AVAC wants to change that. Building on current vaccine systems to improve adult rates is a priority focus for the coalition. For example, Hanen noted that while every state has an immunization registry, their focus has primarily been on engaging with pediatricians and collecting data on childhood immunization coverage. However, the same system could be used to beef up adult vaccine rates too — health departments just need the resources to engage more diverse providers in the registry process, she said. Ideally, all vaccine providers, whether physicians or pharmacists, would be able to access the registry to view an adult’s immunization record, which would give the provider a chance to offer their adult patients seasonal or newly recommended immunizations. In addition, more providers would report adult vaccine data to the registries, providing public health practitioners with the valuable data needed to inform education campaigns, identify coverage gaps and pinpoint particularly vulnerable communities.
“The challenge is that immunization registries need more resources to be more robust,” Hanen said. “With health information technology, we have the opportunity to improve reporting and access and increase cooperability with health systems and records, but we’re not quite there yet.”
Strengthening state registries is just one piece of the coalition’s goals. Overall, AVAC is dedicated to finding systemic and evidence-based answers to the adult vaccine problem. Already, the coalition is speaking out on a number of federal measures that affect adult vaccine access and offering solutions. But as with any problem that has as many contributors and stakeholders as the adult vaccine puzzle, there’s “no magic bullet,” Hanen told me.
“That’s the big challenge,” she said. “It’s all connected, but there’s not one solution.”
To learn more about AVAC and the importance of adult immunizations, visit http://ift.tt/1Oe83Vk.
Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.
When it comes to immunization rates in the United States, the story is a mixed one. Among children, we’ve absolutely excelled. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers the nation’s childhood vaccination rate as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. But when it comes to American adults — 50,000 of whom die every year from vaccine-preventable diseases — it’s a very different story.
Earlier this year, CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report reported that uptake of recommended adult immunizations remains low and is far below Healthy People 2020 targets. (Healthy People 2020 sets the nation’s health objectives for the current decade.) In analyzing data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, researchers found that just more than 17 percent of adults received a tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (Tdap) vaccine; 24.2 percent received a vaccine against shingles; just 5.9 percent of young men received a human papillomavirus vaccine; and about 21 percent of adults at high risk received a pneumococcal vaccine. During the 2014-2015 influenza season, adult flu immunization rates did go up by 1.4 percent, but the overall rate was still below 50 percent.
The low rates not only mean many adults remain susceptible to preventable diseases, but that they risk transmitting often dangerous diseases to particularly vulnerable populations, such as very young children, the elderly and those with impaired immune systems. And consider this: The flu alone costs the U.S. billions of dollars in medical care and lost productivity.
These less-than-ideal adult vaccination rates have attracted the attention and action of health professionals for quite some time. However, in September at a briefing in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., a new coalition of stakeholders from across the health care system officially declared its intention to take up the issue of adult immunizations in earnest and facilitate new solutions to strengthen and enhance access to adult vaccines. Known as the Adult Vaccine Access Coalition (AVAC), the group’s diverse members include health care providers, pharmacists, public health organizations, vaccine makers, and patient and consumer groups. Among its many member groups are the American Public Health Association, American Pharmacists Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The coalition’s policy priorities are three-fold: improving adult immunization data collection; establishing new benchmarks to measure and encourage progress; and advocating for initiatives that boost adult vaccine rates among the most vulnerable and begin to close racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake. Laura Hanen, co-chair of the new coalition and chief of government affairs at the National Association of County and City Health Officials, said the coalition is an opportunity to bring all the stakeholders together and channel relevant resources and skills toward one overriding goal.
“We’ve all been working on this issue in our individual lanes, whether it’s public health groups, health care providers, pharmacists,” Hanen told me. “Now we’re coming together to create collective leverage and build more understanding and awareness around the barriers to adult immunization and try to address it in the post-Affordable Care Act era.”
So why are adult vaccine rates so low? Especially when the U.S. has made such great strides in childhood vaccination coverage. As with most public health conundrums, there are many contributors, but Hanen pointed to a few big ones. Among them are provider and patient awareness. Recommended adult vaccination schedules are not necessarily easy to understand — different vaccines are recommended for different age groups and for people with particular health issues and susceptibilities. It can be “incredibly complicated,” Hanen noted.
Cost and financial reimbursement for adult immunizations have also traditionally been barriers, she said, though new ACA provisions will likely reduce those hurdles. (Under the health reform law, adults who purchase insurance through the new insurance marketplace are entitled to Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-recommended vaccines with no cost-sharing.) Hanen also added that geographic challenges play a role, noting that not all providers carry the full spectrum of recommended adult vaccines.
Another big contributor, she told me, is that unlike childhood vaccines, there’s no nationwide infrastructure and support system in place devoted to increasing adult vaccine rates. For children, there’s the national Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines at no cost to children whose families may not otherwise be able to afford the life-saving drugs. There’s the Section 317 Immunization Program, a federally funded initiative that provides vaccines to uninsured and underinsured kids and adults; there’s school vaccine requirements; and there’s comprehensive reporting of child immunizations to public health agencies so officials can identify gaps and areas of need. In other words, there’s an entire system built to ensure children are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases — and that system has worked incredibly well. Sadly, that’s simply not the case with adults.
Fortunately, AVAC wants to change that. Building on current vaccine systems to improve adult rates is a priority focus for the coalition. For example, Hanen noted that while every state has an immunization registry, their focus has primarily been on engaging with pediatricians and collecting data on childhood immunization coverage. However, the same system could be used to beef up adult vaccine rates too — health departments just need the resources to engage more diverse providers in the registry process, she said. Ideally, all vaccine providers, whether physicians or pharmacists, would be able to access the registry to view an adult’s immunization record, which would give the provider a chance to offer their adult patients seasonal or newly recommended immunizations. In addition, more providers would report adult vaccine data to the registries, providing public health practitioners with the valuable data needed to inform education campaigns, identify coverage gaps and pinpoint particularly vulnerable communities.
“The challenge is that immunization registries need more resources to be more robust,” Hanen said. “With health information technology, we have the opportunity to improve reporting and access and increase cooperability with health systems and records, but we’re not quite there yet.”
Strengthening state registries is just one piece of the coalition’s goals. Overall, AVAC is dedicated to finding systemic and evidence-based answers to the adult vaccine problem. Already, the coalition is speaking out on a number of federal measures that affect adult vaccine access and offering solutions. But as with any problem that has as many contributors and stakeholders as the adult vaccine puzzle, there’s “no magic bullet,” Hanen told me.
“That’s the big challenge,” she said. “It’s all connected, but there’s not one solution.”
To learn more about AVAC and the importance of adult immunizations, visit http://ift.tt/1Oe83Vk.
Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.
By Kacey Fitzpatrick
Need a last minute Halloween costume idea? Want to stand out from the sea of flowing capes and neon spandex? Try going as a non-traditional superhero—an environmental scientist! Check out some of our researchers at work to get an idea of how they work to save the world every day.
Here is some of the latest research they’ve been working on.
Read more about the partnership in the Science Matters story Private, Government Collaboration Advances Air Sensor Technology.
Read the article One Health and Cyanobacteria in Freshwater Systems: Animal Illnesses and Deaths Are Sentinel Events for Human Health Risks here.
Check out Duvall’s public seminar on climate change.
Learn more about the Children’s Centers here.
Check out EPA’s Healthy Heart Toolkit and Research.
If you have any comments or questions about what I share or about the week’s events, please submit them below in the comments section!
About the Author: Kacey Fitzpatrick is a student contractor and writer working with the science communication team in EPA’s Office of Research and Development.
By Kacey Fitzpatrick
Need a last minute Halloween costume idea? Want to stand out from the sea of flowing capes and neon spandex? Try going as a non-traditional superhero—an environmental scientist! Check out some of our researchers at work to get an idea of how they work to save the world every day.
Here is some of the latest research they’ve been working on.
Read more about the partnership in the Science Matters story Private, Government Collaboration Advances Air Sensor Technology.
Read the article One Health and Cyanobacteria in Freshwater Systems: Animal Illnesses and Deaths Are Sentinel Events for Human Health Risks here.
Check out Duvall’s public seminar on climate change.
Learn more about the Children’s Centers here.
Check out EPA’s Healthy Heart Toolkit and Research.
If you have any comments or questions about what I share or about the week’s events, please submit them below in the comments section!
About the Author: Kacey Fitzpatrick is a student contractor and writer working with the science communication team in EPA’s Office of Research and Development.
World leaders have a pretty comprehensive plan to fight climate change, according to a United Nations report released Friday—even if it doesn’t go as far as many of them had hoped.
In just over a month, representatives from most of the countries on Earth will gather in Paris in an attempt to finalize an international agreement to limit global warming and adapt to its impacts. The video above is a snappy explainer of what’s at stake at this meeting, but suffice it to say the proposed deal is split into two keys parts. First is the core agreement, parts of which may be legally binding, that comprises broad, non-specific guidelines for all countries. It calls on countries to take steps such as transparently reporting greenhouse gas emissions and committing to ramp up climate action over the next few decades.
But the real meat-and-potatoes is in the second part, the “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs). The INDCs are what sets the Paris talks apart from past attempts at a global climate agreement in Kyoto in 1997 and Copenhagen in 2009. Those summits either left out major polluters (the US dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol; China and India were exempted) or fell apart completely (Copenhagen), in large part because they were built around universal greenhouse gas reduction targets that not everyone could agree to.
This time around, the UN process is more like a potluck, where each country brings its own unique contribution based on its needs and abilities; those are the INDCs. The US, for example, has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, mostly by going after carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. So far, according to the World Resources Institute, 126 plans have been submitted, covering about 86 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. (The European Union submitted one joint plan for all its members.) Those contributions are likely to limit global warming to around 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels by 2100. That’s above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts—but it’s also about 1 degree C less warming than would would happen if the world continued on its present course.
Now, we have a bit more insight into how countries are planning to make this happen. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the group that is overseeing the Paris talks, combed through all the INDCs to look for trends. Its report is a bit convoluted and repetitive; I don’t recommend it to any but the nerdiest climate nerds. But I pulled out a few of the charts as an overview of what global action on climate change really looks like.
Types of targets: Most of the INDCs contain specific emission reduction targets. (Not all do; some countries, such as the small island nations, have such small or nonexistent emissions that it wouldn’t make sense to promise to reduce them.) The most common way to state these targets is to promise that emissions at X future date will be lower than they would be with no action. Indonesia, for example, has pledged to increase its emissions over the next 25 years by 29 percent less than it would have under a “business as usual” scenario. The US commitment fits in the second category, an “absolute” target where emissions actually begin to go down. Others specify a date at which emissions will “peak,” or set a goal for emissions per unit of GDP or energy production (“intensity”).
Greenhouse gases: The commitments cover a broad range of greenhouse gases (most cover more than one), but carbon dioxide is the most common enemy. That’s no surprise, as it’s by far the most common.
Economic sectors: In different countries, different economic sectors are more or less responsible for climate pollution. In the US, the number-one source of emissions is coal-fired power plants; thus, President Barack Obama’s plans focus on the power sector. In Indonesia, by contrast, deforestation is the biggest problem. Most plans cover more than one sector, but the most common is energy.
How to fix it: This section finds that implementing renewable energy is the most common way countries are planning to meet their targets. More interesting is the tiny role played by carbon capture, use, and storage, down at the bottom of the chart. This refers to technology that “captures” greenhouse gas emissions on their way out of power plants, or directly from the atmosphere, and buries or re-purposes them. Support for carbon capture—also known as “clean coal”—is popular with policymakers who don’t want to curb coal use (including GOP presidential contender John Kasich), even though it remains costly and unproven at scale.
How to adapt: Many countries’ INDCs also contain information about how they plan to adapt to climate change. Water use, agriculture, and public health appear to be the biggest areas of focus.
A terrible, no-good, very bad summary: The most important question is clearly how all this adds up to reducing the world’s greenhouse gas footprint and averting the worst threats posed by climate change. But the chart that addresses this question (below) is…not great. I’m including it so you have some sense of one big drawback of the Paris approach—without universal emissions targets, it’s a lot harder to specify what the cumulative effect of these plans will really be. In short, here’s what this chart shows: The gray line is global greenhouse gas emissions up to today. The orange line is how emissions will grow over the next couple decades if we do nothing. The three blue lines show how quickly we would need to reduce emissions to keep global warming to 2 degrees C; the longer we wait to take action, the steeper the cuts have to be. The yellow rectangles show a snapshot of where the INDCs leave us.
So, we’re better off than before, but we’re not out of danger. That’s why it’s essential for the core agreement to include requirements that countries adopt even more aggressive goals in the future; that’s one of the key things that will be debated in Paris. In other words, the Paris meeting is just one key battle in a war that’s far from over, Jennifer Morgan, director of the WRI’s global climate program, said in a statement. “Despite the unprecedented level of effort, this report finds that current commitments are not yet sufficient to meet what the world needs. Countries must accelerate their efforts after the Paris summit in order to stave off climate change. The global climate agreement should include a clear mandate for countries to ramp up their commitments and set a long-term signal to phase out emissions as soon as possible.”
World leaders have a pretty comprehensive plan to fight climate change, according to a United Nations report released Friday—even if it doesn’t go as far as many of them had hoped.
In just over a month, representatives from most of the countries on Earth will gather in Paris in an attempt to finalize an international agreement to limit global warming and adapt to its impacts. The video above is a snappy explainer of what’s at stake at this meeting, but suffice it to say the proposed deal is split into two keys parts. First is the core agreement, parts of which may be legally binding, that comprises broad, non-specific guidelines for all countries. It calls on countries to take steps such as transparently reporting greenhouse gas emissions and committing to ramp up climate action over the next few decades.
But the real meat-and-potatoes is in the second part, the “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs). The INDCs are what sets the Paris talks apart from past attempts at a global climate agreement in Kyoto in 1997 and Copenhagen in 2009. Those summits either left out major polluters (the US dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol; China and India were exempted) or fell apart completely (Copenhagen), in large part because they were built around universal greenhouse gas reduction targets that not everyone could agree to.
This time around, the UN process is more like a potluck, where each country brings its own unique contribution based on its needs and abilities; those are the INDCs. The US, for example, has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, mostly by going after carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. So far, according to the World Resources Institute, 126 plans have been submitted, covering about 86 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. (The European Union submitted one joint plan for all its members.) Those contributions are likely to limit global warming to around 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels by 2100. That’s above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts—but it’s also about 1 degree C less warming than would would happen if the world continued on its present course.
Now, we have a bit more insight into how countries are planning to make this happen. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the group that is overseeing the Paris talks, combed through all the INDCs to look for trends. Its report is a bit convoluted and repetitive; I don’t recommend it to any but the nerdiest climate nerds. But I pulled out a few of the charts as an overview of what global action on climate change really looks like.
Types of targets: Most of the INDCs contain specific emission reduction targets. (Not all do; some countries, such as the small island nations, have such small or nonexistent emissions that it wouldn’t make sense to promise to reduce them.) The most common way to state these targets is to promise that emissions at X future date will be lower than they would be with no action. Indonesia, for example, has pledged to increase its emissions over the next 25 years by 29 percent less than it would have under a “business as usual” scenario. The US commitment fits in the second category, an “absolute” target where emissions actually begin to go down. Others specify a date at which emissions will “peak,” or set a goal for emissions per unit of GDP or energy production (“intensity”).
Greenhouse gases: The commitments cover a broad range of greenhouse gases (most cover more than one), but carbon dioxide is the most common enemy. That’s no surprise, as it’s by far the most common.
Economic sectors: In different countries, different economic sectors are more or less responsible for climate pollution. In the US, the number-one source of emissions is coal-fired power plants; thus, President Barack Obama’s plans focus on the power sector. In Indonesia, by contrast, deforestation is the biggest problem. Most plans cover more than one sector, but the most common is energy.
How to fix it: This section finds that implementing renewable energy is the most common way countries are planning to meet their targets. More interesting is the tiny role played by carbon capture, use, and storage, down at the bottom of the chart. This refers to technology that “captures” greenhouse gas emissions on their way out of power plants, or directly from the atmosphere, and buries or re-purposes them. Support for carbon capture—also known as “clean coal”—is popular with policymakers who don’t want to curb coal use (including GOP presidential contender John Kasich), even though it remains costly and unproven at scale.
How to adapt: Many countries’ INDCs also contain information about how they plan to adapt to climate change. Water use, agriculture, and public health appear to be the biggest areas of focus.
A terrible, no-good, very bad summary: The most important question is clearly how all this adds up to reducing the world’s greenhouse gas footprint and averting the worst threats posed by climate change. But the chart that addresses this question (below) is…not great. I’m including it so you have some sense of one big drawback of the Paris approach—without universal emissions targets, it’s a lot harder to specify what the cumulative effect of these plans will really be. In short, here’s what this chart shows: The gray line is global greenhouse gas emissions up to today. The orange line is how emissions will grow over the next couple decades if we do nothing. The three blue lines show how quickly we would need to reduce emissions to keep global warming to 2 degrees C; the longer we wait to take action, the steeper the cuts have to be. The yellow rectangles show a snapshot of where the INDCs leave us.
So, we’re better off than before, but we’re not out of danger. That’s why it’s essential for the core agreement to include requirements that countries adopt even more aggressive goals in the future; that’s one of the key things that will be debated in Paris. In other words, the Paris meeting is just one key battle in a war that’s far from over, Jennifer Morgan, director of the WRI’s global climate program, said in a statement. “Despite the unprecedented level of effort, this report finds that current commitments are not yet sufficient to meet what the world needs. Countries must accelerate their efforts after the Paris summit in order to stave off climate change. The global climate agreement should include a clear mandate for countries to ramp up their commitments and set a long-term signal to phase out emissions as soon as possible.”
