Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target.

Net anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) must approach zero by mid-century (2050) in order to stabilize the global mean temperature at the level targeted by international efforts1-5. Yet continued expansion of fossil-fuel-burning energy infrastructure implies already 'committed' future CO2 emissions6-13. Here we use detailed datasets of existing fossil-fuel energy infrastructure in 2018 to estimate regional and sectoral patterns of committed CO2 emissions, the sensitivity of such emissions to assumed operating lifetimes and schedules, and the economic value of the associated infrastructure. We estimate that, if operated as historically, existing infrastructure will cumulatively emit about 658 gigatonnes of CO2 (with a range of 226 to 1,479 gigatonnes CO2, depending on the lifetimes and utilization rates assumed). More than half of these emissions are predicted to come from the electricity sector; infrastructure in China, the USA and the 28 member states of the European Union represents approximately 41 per cent, 9 per cent and 7 per cent of the total, respectively. If built, proposed power plants (planned, permitted or under construction) would emit roughly an extra 188 (range 37-427) gigatonnes CO2. Committed emissions from existing and proposed energy infrastructure (about 846 gigatonnes CO2) thus represent more than the entire carbon budget that remains if mean warming is to be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) with a probability of 66 to 50 per cent (420-580 gigatonnes CO2)5, and perhaps two-thirds of the remaining carbon budget if mean warming is to be limited to less than 2 °C (1,170-1,500 gigatonnes CO2)5. The remaining carbon budget estimates are varied and nuanced14,15, and depend on the climate target and the availability of large-scale negative emissions16. Nevertheless, our estimates suggest that little or no new CO2-emitting infrastructure can be commissioned, and that existing infrastructure may need to be retired early (or be retrofitted with carbon capture and storage technology) in order to meet the Paris Agreement climate goals17. Given the asset value per tonne of committed emissions, we suggest that the most cost-effective premature infrastructure retirements will be in the electricity and industry sectors, if non-emitting alternatives are available and affordable4,18.

Cleaner fuels for ships provide public health benefits with climate tradeoffs.

We evaluate public health and climate impacts of low-sulphur fuels in global shipping. Using high-resolution emissions inventories, integrated atmospheric models, and health risk functions, we assess ship-related PM2.5 pollution impacts in 2020 with and without the use of low-sulphur fuels. Cleaner marine fuels will reduce ship-related premature mortality and morbidity by 34 and 54%, respectively, representing a ~ 2.6% global reduction in PM2.5 cardiovascular and lung cancer deaths and a ~3.6% global reduction in childhood asthma. Despite these reductions, low-sulphur marine fuels will still account for ~250k deaths and ~6.4 M childhood asthma cases annually, and more stringent standards beyond 2020 may provide additional health benefits. Lower sulphur fuels also reduce radiative cooling from ship aerosols by ~80%, equating to a ~3% increase in current estimates of total anthropogenic forcing. Therefore, stronger international shipping policies may need to achieve climate and health targets by jointly reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution.

Earthquakes, Fuel Crisis, Power Outages, and Health Care in Nepal: Implications for the Future.

Earthquakes are a major natural calamity with pervasive effects on human life and nature. Similar effects are mimicked by man-made disasters such as fuel crises and power outages in developing countries. Natural and man-made disasters can cause intangible human suffering and often leave scars of lifelong psychosocial damage. Lessons from these disasters are frequently not implemented. The main objective of this study was to review the effects of the 2015 earthquakes, fuel crisis, and power outages on the health services of Nepal and formulate recommendations for the future. The impacts of earthquakes on health can be divided into immediate, intermediate, and long-term effects. Power outages and fuel crises have health hazards at all stages. It is imperative to understand the temporal effects of earthquakes, because the major needs soon after the earthquake (emergency care) are vastly different from long-term needs such as rehabilitation and psychosocial support. In Nepal, the inadequate and nearly nonexistent specialized health care at the peripheral level claimed many lives during the earthquakes and left many people disproportionately injured. Preemptive strategies such as mobile critical care units at primary health centers, intensive care training for health workers, and alternative plans for emergency care must be prioritized. Similarly, infrastructural damage led to poor sanitation, and alternative plans for temporary settlements (water supply, food, settlements logistics, space for temporary settlements) must be in place where the danger of disease outbreak is imminent. While much of these strategies are implementable and are often set as priorities, long-term effects of earthquakes such as physical and psychosocial supports are often overlooked. The burden of psychosocial stresses, including depression and physical disabilities, needs to be prioritized by facilitating human resources for mental health care and rehabilitation. In addition, inclusion of mental health and rehabilitation facilities in government health care services of Nepal needs to be prioritized. Similarly, power outages and fuel crises affect health care disproportionately. In the current context where permanent solutions may not be possible, mitigating health hazards, especially cold chain maintenance for essential medicines and continuation of life-saving procedures, are mandatory and policies to regulate all health care services must be undertaken. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:625-632).

Clean energy benefits the climate, the economy and our health.

Jeffrey D Sachs tells Fiona Fleck why investing in renewable energy is good for our health, but why poor countries need more time to make the switch.

The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C.

Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2 °C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times. It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of keeping warming below 2 °C throughout the twenty-first century, the cumulative carbon emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be limited to around 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2). However, the greenhouse gas emissions contained in present estimates of global fossil fuel reserves are around three times higher than this, and so the unabated use of all current fossil fuel reserves is incompatible with a warming limit of 2 °C. Here we use a single integrated assessment model that contains estimates of the quantities, locations and nature of the world's oil, gas and coal reserves and resources, and which is shown to be consistent with a wide variety of modelling approaches with different assumptions, to explore the implications of this emissions limit for fossil fuel production in different regions. Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C. We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2 °C. Our results show that policy makers' instincts to exploit rapidly and completely their territorial fossil fuels are, in aggregate, inconsistent with their commitments to this temperature limit. Implementation of this policy commitment would also render unnecessary continued substantial expenditure on fossil fuel exploration, because any new discoveries could not lead to increased aggregate production.