Innovation & technology

Scientists are describing it as the final call: the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report earlier this week predicted that global temperatures were set to rise to 3 degrees above pre-industrial levels - the IPCC says urgent and drastic action is imperative to keep the rise at one and a half degrees or less. 

The global economy must be transformed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate damage, a new United Nations report declares. Climate economist William Nordhaus has been made a Nobel laureate. The events are being reported as two parts of the same story, but they reveal the contradictions inherent in climate policy—and why economics matters more than ever.

When a “solution” to a problem causes more damage than the problem, policymaking has gone awry. That’s where we often find ourselves with global warming today.

Activist organizations like Worldwatch argue that higher temperatures will make more people hungry, so drastic carbon cuts are needed. But a comprehensive new study published in Nature Climate Change led by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis has found that strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself.

When India found itself at the 103rd position in the recent World Economic Forum ranking of 130 nations on the preparedness of talent, it was just another indication of the skills challenge. In just five years, the government’s skill gap analysis report estimates that an extra 40 crore workers need to be skilled, reskilled or upskilled. The current official estimate is that slightly more than half a crore people are being trained annually.

Bæredygtige investeringer og elbiler er populære genveje til en grøn samvittighed, men det batter bare ikke i energiregnskabet, mener politologen Bjørn Lomborg, der gennem 20 år har set energidebatten køre i ring.

La información publicada por el The Washington Post sobre la intención del Gobierno de Donald Trump de pedir al Congreso que recorte un 72% los fondos de las energías limpias y los programas de eficiencia energética en su presupuesto de este año, no ha tenido el impacto mediático de lo que realmente significaría si se llevara a cabo.

News that the Trump administration is poised to ask Congress for deep budget cuts to the Energy Department's renewable energy and energy efficiency programs has thus far generated less outrage than the White House’s abandonment of the Paris Climate Treaty, yet has the potential to be far more damaging to efforts to respond to climate change.

När vi tänker på energifattigdom ser vi framför oss bristande belysning i världens sämst ställda länder där 1,1 miljarder människor fortfarande saknar el. Denna enorma utmaning, som kommer att tacklas på bred front när vi fortsätter att minska fattigdomen och hjälpa dem som saknar fast el att få kontakt med elnätet, drivs till stor del av fossila bränslen.

Entre las opciones de gasto para los gobiernos de las naciones más pobres, poner en marcha la revolución tecnológica puede parecer al principio una prioridad menor. Si lo comparamos con la situación crítica de la infraestructura, la atención sanitaria o las escuelas, el acceso digital mejorado y la reducción del tiempo de espera para obtener certificados de nacimiento se sienten como lujos que deberían postergarse, o quizás dejarse a la iniciativa privada. Pero hay razones para reconsiderar esto.

The follow-up meeting to the 2015 Paris climate accord on Dec 12 will be slightly less impressive than the original. Having dumped the Paris Agreement, US President Donald Trump is going to skip, and China and India are sending ministers instead of their leaders. But we will hear the same defiance coming from Paris as we have heard for the past two years: the Paris Agreement will continue, even without the US.