INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
By Matt McGrath
Carbon emissions have not yet peaked in many countries the report saysGlobal efforts to tackle climate change are way off
track says the UN, as it details the first rise in CO2 emissions in four years.The emissions gap report says that economic growth is
responsible for a rise in 2017 while national efforts to cut carbon have faltered.To meet the goals of the Paris climate pact, the study
says it's crucial that global emissions peak by 2020.But the analysis says that this is now not likely even by 2030.The report comes days
before a major UN climate conference starting in Poland from 2-14 December.UK summers could be over 5C warmer by 2070Dire warning on US
climate change impactsAttenborough takes seat at climate talksWhat is the emissions gap?For the last nine years, UN Environment have
produced an assessment of the latest scientific studies on current and future emissions of greenhouse gases.
It highlights the difference
between the level of greenhouse gas emissions that the world can sustain to keep temperatures within safe limits, with the levels that are
likely based on the promises and actions taken by countries.
This year's report records the largest gap yet between where we are and
where we need to be.
Why are emissions rising again?Between 2014 and 2016, global emissions of CO2 from industry and the production of
energy were essentially stable while the global economy grew modestly - but in 2017 these emissions went up by 1.2% pushed along by higher
GDP.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionWhile renewable energy sources are booming in countries like India, carbon emissions haven't
yet peakedWhile the rise might seem small, it needs to be seen in context of efforts to keep global temperatures from rising by more than
1.5C, as recently outlined in a key IPCC report.
According to the UN, to keep the world below that target, global greenhouse gas emissions
in 2030 would have to be 55% lower than today.
"There is still a tremendous gap between words and deeds, between the targets agreed by
governments worldwide to stabilise our climate and the measures to achieve these goals," said Dr Gunnar Luderer, from the Potsdam Institute
for Climate Impact Research and one of the authors of the study.
The scientists say that to tackle the gap, nations must raise their
ambition five fold to meet the 1.5C goal.
Right now, the world is heading for a temperature rise of 3.2C by the end of this century the
report says.
No peaking?One key aspect of the study is about the peaking of global greenhouse emissions.
The report says that peaking of
emissions in 2020 is "crucial for achieving the temperature targets in the Paris agreement," but the scale of the current efforts is
insufficient.
The study says that by 2030, around 57 countries representing about 60% of global emissions will have peaked
Nowhere near where the world needs to be.
Does the report point the finger at countries that are doing badly?In some ways yes
The study says that countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, the EU (including the UK), South Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and
the US, are falling short of achieving their nationally determined contributions for 2030.The burning and clearing of forests in Asia
contributes hugely to emissionsThree countries, Brazil, China and Japan are currently on track, while three others, India, Russia and Turkey
are set to beat their targets.
The authors believe that some of these achievements may be down to setting relatively low targets for their
national plans.
Is there any positive news in the report?Undoubtedly, yes.
The UN is placing great hopes in what it terms "non-state
actors", meaning local, city and regional governments, businesses and higher education institutions can have major impacts on the future
gap.
They estimate that, right now, more than 7,000 cities from 133 countries and 6,000 companies with at least $36 trillion in revenue
have pledged to take climate action.
But the authors believe this is just scratching the surface
With over 500,000 publicly traded companies worldwide, there are many more that can take steps that cumulatively would have a significant
impact on the gap.
The study says that there is the potential to cut emissions from this sector by 19 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent per year
by 2030 - that's enough to keep the world on a 2 degree path.
The future is fiscal?The report also suggests that government tax plans
could be hugely important in tackling emissions.
It says that carbon taxes or carbon trading systems cover only 15% of the global carbon
output, which could rise to 20% if China implements its planned market
But the report says that half of the emissions from fossil fuels are not taxed at all and only 10% are priced at a level consistent with
keeping warming to 2C.
Subsidies for fossil fuels like coal will have to be phased out to meet climate targets"When governments embrace
fiscal policy measures to subsidise low-emission alternatives and tax fossil fuels, they can stimulate the right investments in the energy
sector and significantly reduce carbon emissions," said Jian Liu, UN Environment's chief scientist.
"If all fossil fuel subsidies were
phased out, global carbon emissions could be reduced by up to 10% by 2030
Setting the right carbon price is also essential
At $70 per tonne of CO2, emission reductions of up to 40% are possible in some countries."
What happens now?This report is aimed at
informing delegates to next week's key climate conference in Katowice, Poland
Negotiators will be trying to finish the rules on how to implement the rule book of the Paris agreement - but the report's authors hope it
can push countries to greater levels of ambition.
"Germany and Europe could demonstrate leadership in this area by pledging complete
greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050 and a clear strengthening of the emission reduction targets for 2030," said Dr Gunnar Luderer.
Climate
change food calculator: What's your diet's carbon footprint?By Nassos Stylianou, Clara Guibourg and Helen Briggs
Avoiding meat and
dairy products is one of the biggest ways to reduce your environmental impact, according to recent scientific studies.
Switching to a
plant-based diet can help fight climate change, according to a major report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
which says the West's high consumption of meat and dairy is fuelling global warming.
But what is the difference between beef and chicken?
Does a bowl of rice produce more climate warming greenhouse gases than a plate of chips? Is wine more environmentally friendly than
beer?
To find out the climate impact of what you eat and drink, choose from one of the 34 items in our calculator and pick how often you
have it.
How do your food choices impact on the environment?Which food would you like? How often do you have it? Find outAll figures for
each food in the calculator are global averages
If you cannot view the food calculator, click to launch the interactive content.
Design by Prina Shah, development by Felix Stephenson and
Becky Rush.
Food production is responsible for a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming, according to a
University of Oxford study.
However, the researchers found that the environmental impact of different foods varies hugely.
Their findings
showed that meat and other animal products are responsible for more than half of food-related greenhouse gas emissions, despite providing
only a fifth of the calories we eat and drink.
Of all the products analysed in the study, beef and lamb were found to have by far the most
damaging effect on the environment.
The findings echo recommendations on how individuals can lessen climate change by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
When it comes to our diets, the IPCC says we need to buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter - but also eat
more locally sourced seasonal food, and throw less of it away.
The IPCC also recommends that we insulate homes, take trains and buses
instead of planes, and use video conferencing instead of business travel.
Cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an
individual's carbon footprint from food by two-thirds, according to the Oxford study, published in the journal Science.
Sign up for a
weekly chat about climate change on Facebook Messenger
"What we eat is one of the most powerful drivers behind most of the world's major
environmental issues, whether it's climate change or biodiversity loss," study researcher Joseph Poore told BBC News.
Changing your diet
can make a big difference to your personal environmental footprint, from saving water to reducing pollution and the loss of forests, he
said.
"It reduces the amount of land required to produce your food by about 75% - that's a huge reduction, particularly if you scale that
up globally," Poore explained.
If you fly regularly, replacing flying with other forms of transport may have a bigger impact on your carbon
footprint than changing your diet
A passenger's carbon footprint from a one-way flight from London to New York is just under half a tonne of greenhouse gases
Switching from a regular petrol vehicle to an electric car could save more than double that over a year.
Knowing how and where your food is
produced is also important, as the same food can have huge differences in environmental impact.
For example, beef cattle raised on
deforested land is responsible for 12 times more greenhouse gas emissions than cows reared on natural pastures.
The average beef from South
America results in three times the amount of greenhouse gases as beef produced in Europe - and uses 10 times as much land.
Meat and dairy
are not the only foods where the choices you make can make a big difference.
Chocolate and coffee originating from deforested rainforest
produce relatively high greenhouse gases.
For climate-friendly tomatoes, choose those grown outdoors or in high-tech greenhouses, instead
of in greenhouses heated by gas or oil
Environmentally-minded beer-drinkers may be interested to know that draught beer is responsible for fewer emissions than recyclable cans, or
worse, glass bottles.
Even the most climate-friendly meat options still produce more greenhouse gases than vegetarian protein sources, like
beans or nuts.
Climate change: Where we are in seven chartsFailure to tackle warming 's uicidal'Climate change is 's hrinking winter'How
did we make the calculator?How is the environmental impact calculated?University of Oxford researcher Joseph Poore, and Thomas Nemecek of
the Agroecology and Environment Research Division in Zurich, Switzerland, looked at the environmental impact of 40 major food products that
represent the vast majority of what is eaten globally.
They assessed the effect of these foods on climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions
and the amount of land and fresh water used across all stages of their production, including processing, packaging, and transportation, but
excluding the cooking process.
By analysing data from nearly 40,000 farms, 1,600 processors, packaging types and retailers, Poore and
Nemecek were able to assess how different production practices and geographies have very different consequences on the planet.
What about
serving sizes?The data in the study looked at the environmental impact for 1kg of each of the different food products.
For this story,
these were converted to impact per serving sizes based on serving sizes from the British Dietetic Association (BDA) and healthy diet portion
sizes from BUPA.
The figures for serving sizes based on the BDA and BUPA suggestions are often lower than portion sizes commonly found in
restaurants and what people normally expect, so the figures returned by the calculator on the impact of individuals' consumption are likely
to be higher in reality.
Protein-rich foods were calculated using the impact per 100g of protein from Poore and Nemecek's research and
data on protein per serving from the BDA, to avoid differences between cooked and uncooked foods.
What are greenhouse gases?The figures for
greenhouse gas emissions are in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq)
This is a unit that converts the impact of different kinds of greenhouse gases, like methane and nitrous oxide, to the equivalent amount of
carbon dioxide.
How do you know what my diet is equal to in miles driven?The annual impact from eating a specific food is calculated by
multiplying the impact of one serving of that food by the times it is eaten in a year, based on the weekly estimates submitted by the
user.
These are then compared with the emissions of other daily habits
The European Environment Agency estimates that driving a regular petrol car produces 392g of CO2eq/mile over its entire lifecycle, including
emissions from the vehicle's production, fuel production and exhaust emissions per mile.
Heating the average UK home produces 2.34 tonnes
of CO2eq annually, according to data from the Committee on Climate Change, and a passenger's carbon footprint for a return flight from
London to Malaga is 320kg CO2eq, based on figures from the Carbon Neutral calculator.
The land used to produce the annual consumption of
each food is compared with the size of a double tennis court, 261 metres squared.
The annual amount of water used is compared with a
shower, based on figures suggesting the average shower lasts eight minutes and uses up 65 litres
water taken out of rivers or the ground, is included in the data.
