With world leaders set to meet in Glasgow tomorrow to discuss the next wave of climate policy, much of the nation’s energy has been focused on climate policy. We begin our weekly news review with a dive into that meeting and the topics it will cover. We then discuss how climate policy has vast implications for national security. Our third article pivots to examine how Big Tech has inserted itself into the geopolitical arena, before wrapping up with an examination of electrification as a partial solution to meet climate goals. While these topics touch on hot-button issues in our culture, cooler heads must prevail, as the decisions we make today will have lasting consequences for the future.

What the World Needs Out of COP26

What is the least we need from COP26?

Martin Wolf, Financial Times

What is Cop26 and why does it matter? The complete guide

Fiona Harvey, The Guardian

The highly anticipated United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) will kick off in Glasgow, Scotland this Friday. 120 world leaders and their respective delegations will meet in-person to discuss and negotiate policies to address climate change with the primary goal to keep the increase in temperatures above pre-industrial levels to less than 1.5°C. Temperatures around the world have already increased 1.1-1.2°C above pre-industrial levels. While an increase of 1.5°C will still result in major negative consequences including rising sea levels, the bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and heatwaves, the consequences from a world that is 2°C warmer are far more catastrophic. The IPCC’s findings released in August reveal there is still a chance for the world to stay within the 1.5°C threshold, but global climate action pledges and nationally determined contributions (NDCs) announced at COP26 must be much more ambitious than current policies.

What is truly needed from COP26? The Energy Transitions Commission published a report last month which addresses the 6 primary issues that should be at the top of the agenda at COP26.

1. A significant and rapid reduction of methane emissions.
2. Stopping deforestation and beginning reforestation.
3. Decarbonization of the power sector – phasing out coal much more rapidly than already planned.
4. Accelerated electrification of road transport.
5. Accelerated decarbonization of heating of buildings and of high-emitting sectors like steel, cement, chemicals, long-distance aviation, and shipping.
6. Major improvements in energy efficiency across the economy.

Furthermore, climate finance – the money provided to poor countries from public and private sources to help them cut emissions – will play a critical role in keeping temperatures at the 1.5°C target. At the 2019 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, developing countries were promised $100 billion a year by 2020, but this target has been missed. According to the OECD, only $80 billion was provided last year. At COP26, developing countries will be seeking reassurances that the money for climate action will be available, especially as these countries have struggled to finance their pandemic recoveries. As proven by scientists and energy technologists, the world can decarbonize quickly enough, but it will be up to leaders to show they understand the implications of failing to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

White House, intelligence agencies, Pentagon issue reports warning that climate change threatens global security

Shane Harris and Michael Birnbaum, The Washington Post

Read the full article here

The consequences of climate change are flooding into all areas of national policy, including security. Recent reports from the Pentagon detail the various ways climate change is not only threatening US national security, but also global security. Until recently, the Defense Department has only considered climate change to the extent of how natural disasters, like floods or extreme heat, could affect military readiness. This was particularly true during the Trump administration since climate-related security assessments did not closely align with the president’s stance toward climate science. Now, there is growing emphasis on assessing and planning for the broader geopolitical consequences of global warming. The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on climate report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence details the various ways in which climate change is threatening security. Climate disruption to fisheries and crops could spark conflict over food security, unpredictable rainfall could increase tensions over access to rivers, disputes could erupt over access to the rare minerals needed for emerging technologies – the list goes on. The report also advises the Defense Department to prepare to provide humanitarian assistance in climate crises, incorporate climate issues into war-games, and get ready for “countering malign actors who seek to exploit climate change to gain influence.” With hundreds of millions of people likely to be displaced due to extreme weather crises over the next several decades, countries like China and Russia could seek to gain influence by supporting countries dealing with political unrest and mass migration. Because of this and to promote overall stability, the NIE report says the US should be ready to direct funding to regions facing climate crises and should expand asylum and refugee programs. The release of the NIE report and other similar security assessments “sends a warning message” to policymakers and national leaders ahead of COP26.

The Technopolar Moment

Ian Bremmer, Foreign Affairs

Read the full article here

As technology opens new frontiers of digital citizenship, the creators and maintainers of this technology – the infamous “Big Tech” companies – now stand in the geopolitical arena under their own power as semi-independent actors. While corporations have long been a key component of world power struggles, never before have these corporations been so closely intertwined with their constituents’ private and public lives. The core functions of public governance are no longer monopolies of the state, and the newfound competition for power will have a profound impact on the trajectory of the twenty-first century. Already, these companies wield enormous influence over the digital dimension they helped create – one need only look at social media’s swift ban of a sitting U.S. President following the events of January 6th, or Microsoft’s handling of a Russian hack of the U.S. government in 2020. Big Tech’s ultimate place at the geopolitical table will likely fall into one of three roles, either one of globalism, nationalism, or techno-utopianism. The first of these, globalism, fits the bill of a traditional capitalist – a pragmatic, profit-driven, and self-promoting approach that respects regional governments insofar as it helps their bottom line. The nationalist corporation, on the other hand, is willing to align itself with its home government to advance the nation’s interests (which comes with its own economic benefits as the company couples its success to the country’s). The third camp of techno-utopianism defines its goals differently – not just business opportunity (though this is still a compelling force), but also human flourishing, as the techno-utopian views itself as the next evolution of human government. The ongoing struggle between large technology companies and world governments for supremacy in the digital dimension mirrors the conflict between the U.S. and China for dominance in the physical world; indeed, these two struggles interlock in a variety of unpredictable ways. Globalist corporations avoid taking sides to preserve their markets, while nationalist companies promote their favored nations. Meanwhile, China and America seek to decouple their technologies from each other while facing internal pressure from lobbyists to promote business interests. All the time, the techno-utopians are quietly waiting, anticipating a future where the responsibilities of government are privatized. Will we see the demise of government and the abolition of national borders? Probably not. But the rules of the geopolitical game are changing, and Big Tech is no longer content to be merely a pawn in the hands of the state.

The Future is Electric

Bill McKibben, The New York Review

Read the full article here

“Electrification is to climate change as the vaccine is to Covid-19 – perhaps not a total solution, but an essential one.”

The combustion of fossil fuels accounts for three-quarters of manmade climate change, according to the book Electrify by Saul Griffith. While individual efforts still contribute to help combat the climate spiral, a recent acceleration of climate-related catastrophes has moved up the timetable of reform, requiring more aggressive action from world leaders. Griffith highlights how the US’s 101 quadrillion BTU’s of energy are allocated, emphasizing how the immediate electrification of key sectors would dramatically reduce energy-related emissions if coupled with renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. For instance, about 20% of all power use in the US goes towards homes, with half of that amount allocated to heating and cooling. While the industrial sector accounts for 30% of consumption, a significant portion of this goes towards the fossil fuel industry (which would presumably be reduced by the transition to renewable energy). Transportation accounts for a significant portion of the remaining 60%, with non-electric transportation contributing a large amount of emissions. Electricity’s superior efficiency to combustion means electrification could reduce total energy consumption by as much as 50%. With renewable energy sources now cheaper than fossil fuels and prices expected to decline further, our capacity to fully transition to renewable sources of power has never been greater. That said, the intermittency of renewable energy sources has received much attention in recent weeks, and rightfully so; the UK’s energy crisis was exacerbated by poor conditions for wind power. Nevertheless, battery technology (a critical component of renewable grids) is quickly catching up to energy technology, with new batteries cheaper and more efficient than ever before. These innovations will ultimately reduce the overall cost of energy in both monetary and climate terms. Switching to these technologies would touch nearly every aspect of daily life, and any mandate to electrify infrastructure on such a massive scale would pose a tremendous political challenge for the federal government. Nevertheless, if the world is to meet the goals likely to be announced in Glasgow next month, drastic changes must come quickly.