# data[].attributes.body
Rise of renewables in the UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On 11 June 2017, something remarkable happened. Strong sunshine and a fierce wind pushed the carbon intensity of producing power below the magic threshold of 100g of CO2 per kilowatt hour. For a short while, low carbon energy powered 70% of homes and businesses in the UK.

What makes this even more remarkable is that this is not the first renewable energy record in recent times. In May, solar energy output briefly eclipsed nuclear power. In fact, it is becoming increasingly common for so-called dirty fuel to be absent from the National Grid for several hours at a time.
Increasing Output
Renewable energy accounted for 26% of the total energy generated in the UK in the first quarter of 2017. This figure is up by 5% on the previous year. On-shore wind generation also broke records in the first quarter, generating 8.3% of energy for the National Grid. A government report found that on-shore wind generation increased by 1.3% in the first quarter, which was the highest increase across all renewables.
The Future is Bright
The future is looking bright for renewable energy, which is just as well as the government has tough climate goals to reach by 2030. Right now, renewable energy accounts for 25% of energy production in the UK. Wind power generation is increasing, particularly during the winter when energy demands are higher. What is interesting is that wind speeds were lower a year ago, but because wind farm capacity is increasing, energy generation is higher.
Not Enough Being Done to Push Renewables
So far, the UK has had success in the switch to low-carbon energy generation, but there is still much to be done. Lord Deben, chair of the committee on climate change, recently criticised the government for not doing enough to push the issue forward.

"The global transition - driven by worldwide government and private sector action - presents opportunities for UK businesses. The wide range of benefits associated with addressing climate change - such as cleaner air and improved health - will be felt by households. Achieving these outcomes requires action from this new Parliament."

He said it was "neither justifiable nor wise to delay further".
Negative Effects on Business
The push towards renewables is needed, but sometimes the effects on businesses are unwelcome and disruptive. The growth of wind and solar farms is threatening the big power companies. Low energy prices in Germany, fuelled by cheaper green energy, have seen share prices at RWE and EON plunge. There is a fear that the same will happen in the UK, but analysts believe that lower prices won't have the same impact.

Right now, low prices during renewable energy output surges are brief and infrequent, but the infrequent nature of output spikes is causing volatility in the energy market. Traders may know how to trade oil, but the energy futures market is becoming increasingly volatile. For businesses who buy their energy in advance, as is common in the manufacturing industry, it can cause issues.

But, irrespective of perceived problems, the future is renewables and UK companies are going to have to find a way to adapt to the changes ahead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On 11 June 2017, something remarkable happened. Strong sunshine and a fierce wind pushed the carbon intensity of producing power below the magic threshold of 100g of CO2 per kilowatt hour. For a short while, low carbon energy powered 70% of homes and businesses in the UK.

# data[].attributes.body
Tar sands have been dubbed the largest – and most destructive – industrial project in human history. And Canada is on the forefront of their exploitation...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This week, the Canadian government will be in Bonn touting Canada's climate plan. It will be joined by Canadian oil companies working to put a green hue on Canadian tar sands - but the world shouldn't be fooled.

The truth is, Canada cannot yet meet its own arguably weak climate targets. The country plans to expand oil and gas production despite evidence that this is inconsistent with Paris goals. Then, there is the issue of the toxic sludge of waste products from Canada's tar sands destruction, which form what are known as tailings ponds.

As of this year, these ponds hold 1 trillion litres of sludge that is unlike any other industrial byproduct in the world. They contain a unique cocktail of toxic chemicals and hydrocarbons that will remain in molasses-like suspension for centuries if left alone.

These open, unlined ponds currently cover 220 sq km, an area of land equivalent to 73 New York Central Parks. A single tailings pond - the Mildred Lake Settling Basin - has been identified by the US Department of the Interior as the world's largest dam.

These tailings ponds made international headlines in 2008 when 1,600 ducks flew into one of them. The resulting imagery of animals coated in oil was a powerful reminder of the costs of our global oil addiction.

Since then, the issue has slowly faded from public memory as the Alberta government's strident promises to clean up the ponds left Canada and the rest of the world under the impression the problem was being seriously dealt with.

Yet, last month the government of Alberta approved a tailings management plan for Suncor Energy Incorporated, the oldest mining company in the Canadian tar sands. By approving this plan, Suncor will get an additional 70 years after their operations shut down to clean up the environmental mess that they have created over 60 years of oil extraction.

These open, unlined ponds currently cover 220 sq km, an area of land equivalent to 73 New York Central Parks

To be clear, Alberta has a new progressive majority NDP government which has made some great, long overdue strides in addressing social and environmental issues such as a coal phase-out and a cap on emissions from the tar sands.

However, even under this government, the cumulative impacts of this fossil fuel development are growing and industry continues to obtain sweeping approvals that are shocking for their lack of environmental rigour.

The history of the government's weak attempts to address tailings are shocking. A couple of years ago a directive was put into place to require companies to reduce tailings. Not a single company complied. Rather than fining the companies or refusing permits, the government simply removed the directive.

This recent Suncor approval highlights the staggering and growing cumulative environmental footprint of the Alberta tar sands. Mining the tar sands for oil produces over 3,600 tonnes of CO ₂ emissions per hectare, consumes freshwater at a rate that rivals the daily water use of several major Canadian cities combined, and has destroyed a New York City-sized chunk of boreal forest and muskeg habitat.

For these reasons, the tar sands have been dubbed the largest (and most destructive) industrial project in human history.

Unfortunately, the now full-blown environmental crisis of tar sands tailings ponds has only gotten worse in the last decade. In Canada, provinces and territories have jurisdiction over resource extraction, and the implementation of a new tailings regulation by the provincial regulator has resulted in a recent review of all tar sands operations tailings management plans.

Suncor's plan is the first to be approved, but represents a typical submission. For this reason, the approval decision has now set the precedent for what will be considered acceptable by the regulator in the sector, and it isn't pretty.

While Suncor's mine will close down in 2033, they have been granted until after 2100 to figure out how to clean up their tailings and reclaim the land. Moreover, they will be "treating" their tailings by dumping them in the bottom of pits and covering them with freshwater to form a permanent "lake".

The long-term ecological risks this creates extend far beyond Alberta, and even Canada. Several of the tailings ponds are now decades old. A failure of a single tailings dyke could result in contaminated waterways from Alberta's Athabasca region through to the Arctic Ocean, that would make even the Exxon Valdez disaster look mild by comparison.

In addition, government data shows that these tailing ponds are leaking and indigenous leaders have repeatedly called for health studies and noted that the expansion of the tarsands is violating their Treaty rights

The dire state of this situation is compounded by the very uncertain economic future for tar sands mining. The tar sands industry's approach to tailings management since 1967 has been to procrastinate on cleaning up the mess until a silver bullet technology is found to deal with them.

Now, 50 years later, technologies to clean up tailings that have been discovered are not being implemented because they are expensive and government is not requiring them.

Meanwhile, the buck is being passed even further into the future. In 2015 the auditor general estimated that tailings liability now surpassed $20bn, a figure many say is conservative. Mining tar sands is one of the most expensive ways to produce crude oil in the world, and with the International Energy Agency assessing 21st-century peak oil demand to be around the corner, it will be among the first oil industries to face bankruptcy.

If they are not dealt with now, tar sands tailings could become a permanent toxic legacy of the most reckless forms of 20th-century fossil fuel extraction.

Fortunately, however, there is still time to shine a light on Canada's most shameful environmental secret and force the polluters to pay up today before they are no longer around to do so.

Tzeporah Berman is a Canadian policy adviser on climate and energy issues and an adjunct professor of environmental studies at York University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canada's most shameful environmental secret must not remain hidden | Tzeporah Berman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week, the Canadian government will be in Bonn touting Canada's climate plan. It will be joined by Canadian oil companies working to put a green hue on Canadian tar sands - but the world shouldn't be fooled. The truth is, Canada cannot yet meet its own arguably weak climate targets.

# data[].attributes.body
Boom in renewables weakens the case for fracking in the UK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The case for fracking in Britain has weakened because of government action to extract more oil and gas from the North Sea and meteoric growth in renewable power, according to a Conservative MP tasked with developing the party's energy policy.

James Heappey said the new rules on tax relief for offshore oil and gas fields announced in last week's budget could change the energy landscape.

"I suppose there's a question mark over whether we've managed to unlock that [offshore], is an onshore industry as important as it was a couple of years ago," said Heappery, who was recently appointed chair of an internal policy committee on energy.

There are believed to be 20bn barrels of oil left in the North Sea oilfields.

Asked whether the absence of shale gas in the budget and government's recent flagship climate plan showed the Conservatives were going lukewarm on fracking, the MP for Wells said: "I can't speak for the party. I've been encouraged by it fading away ... I don't know whether by accident or design."

His comments came as the government prepared to issue its final consent for hydraulic fracturing at Kirby Misperton in North Yorkshire.

If the green light is given in December, as expected, the fracking project will be the first in Britain for six year. It follows years of delays because bans and planning battles.

In an interview with the Guardian, Heappey said the rationale for exploiting shale gas had been undercut by the growth in wind and solar power, and by new technologies that can reduce big energy users' demand at peak times.

"If we can fill the gap in revenues through the North Sea, and renewables and clean tech are developing so quickly that gas as a bridge fuel [to renewables] is less important, you just start to wonder what the need is [for shale]," he said.

Fracking was a priority for George Osborne and David Cameron while in office, with the then prime minister saying his government was "going out all for shale" and the then chancellor asking cabinet ministers to fast-track development.

The election manifesto of Theresa May promised to "develop the shale industry in Britain", but her government has been quiet in recent months, despite it finally being on the verge of an exploration phase.

However, industry figures said they had been given no indication the government was cooling in its support for shale.

A spokeswoman at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: "The UK government is committed to ensuring we have secure energy supplies that are reliable, affordable and clean.

"As part of this, shale gas has the potential to be a home-grown energy source which can lead to jobs and economic growth, contribute to our security of supply, and help us achieve our climate change objectives."

Heappey said another announcement in the budget, of no new subsidies for low-carbon power until 2025, was not as bad news as it may appear for the renewables sector.

He argued that wind and solar were on the cusp of being viable in Britain without subsidies. "I just think we've reached that point," he said, though he acknowledged "there will be people in industry who say we're close but not quite there".

The Treasury defended the decision to stop new green energy subsidies on the grounds that energy billpayers would be paying £8.6bn a year for the power stations by 2025.

Heappey said the strategy was the right one. "Government should seek to get itself out of the place it has ended up in. The UK energy market hasn't benefited from government stuck in the middle of it, saying how much it's willing to pay for technology."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Boom in renewables weakens fracking's case in UK, says Tory MP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The case for fracking in Britain has weakened because of government action to extract more oil and gas from the North Sea and meteoric growth in renewable power, according to a Conservative MP tasked with developing the party's energy policy.

# data[].attributes.body
What is fracking and why should you care?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK government has approved plans for fracking to take place in Lancashire in a landmark ruling this week but what is fracking and why is it so controversial?

What is fracking?

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is used to extract oil and gas from shale rock. The process involves drilling down into the earth before water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure. This allows the gas to flow out to the head of the well. The term 'fracking' refers to how the rock fractures apart by the high-pressure mixture.

The process can be carried out in two ways: vertically or horizontally. The UK government approved plans for horizontal fracking, which will be the first time this process is used in the UK. Drilling into the rock layer can create new pathways to release gas or can also be used to extend existing channels.

Why has fracking been proposed?

Fracking is another way of getting gas out of the ground, which is a difficult to reach, yet necessary, resource for modern life. In the US, it has significantly boosted domestic oil production and driven down gas prices.

Estimates suggested there could be as much as 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas lying under 11 counties in central and northern England, which would equate to more than 51 years of gas supply for the UK.

The industry suggests fracking of shale gas could contribute to the UK's future energy needs and ensure the UK has gas security. There is also the possible economic impact of shale gas - the Task Force on Shale Gas, an industry-funded body, says it could create thousands of jobs.

What's the problem then?

Campaigners against the technique say it has a negative impact on the environment because of the chemicals and pressures used. Cuadrilla, the oil and gas production company which has received the go-ahead for fracking in Lancashire, was forced to suspend test operations near Blackpool in 2011 after two earthquakes of 1.5 and 2.2 magnitude hit the area. Later, a study found it was "highly probable" that the shale gas test drilling triggered the tremors.

A huge amount of water is needed to carry out fracking too, and there are environmental issues that can arise from this.

In addition, environmentalists have said potentially carcinogenic chemicals used during the process may escape and contaminate the ground around the fracking site. In areas where fracking occurs, owners of homes could see the values of their prices fall too.

Is there a compromise?

The Task Force on Shale Gas said in July last year that fracking could be done safely in the UK with "rigorous regulation". And its chairman, Lord Smith believes shale could help cut emissions by replacing more polluting coal.

Where is it happening in the UK?

A ban on the process was lifted in 2012, allowing fracking in the UK for the first time. We could see it happening more and more, as the UK's prime minister Theresa May has voted against regulations to prevent fracking in the past.

Communities secretary Sajid Javid approved the plans for fracking at Preston New Road, Lancashire this week. A second proposed site, Roseacre Wood in Lancashire, has not been given the green light yet, amid concerns over the impact on the area.

In May this year, North Yorkshire County Council voted to approve tests at a site near Kirby Misperton, in Ryedale.

Cuadrilla also has a license to investigate underground fracking potential in West Sussex.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK government has approved plans for fracking to take place in Lancashire in a landmark ruling this week but what is fracking and why is it so controversial? Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is used to extract oil and gas from shale rock.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Al Gore has accused Donald Trump of surrounding himself "with the absolute worst of climate deniers" and said he has given up attempting to persuade the president to reverse his dismantling of policies combatting global warming.

However, both Gore, the former US vice-president, and Jerry Brown, governor of California, told the Guardian they were confident the US will regain its leadership position on climate change if Trump is defeated in the next presidential election.

Gore, Brown and Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York, are heading a broad coalition of climate change hawks from US states, cities and businesses in Bonn, where UN climate talks are being held. This alliance is in sharp contrast to the official US delegation, which is representing the only national government in the world that doesn't want to be part of the Paris climate accords.

"I haven't had any conversations with [Trump] since his speech to withdraw from Paris. I tried my best and thought he'd come to his senses but I've been proven wrong," Gore, who met with Trump during the transition to try to influence his thinking, told the Guardian. "I don't feel I have the ability to change his mind. He's surrounded himself with the absolute worst of climate deniers who seem to have captured his mind on the issue."

Trump has aligned with Scott Pruitt, the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency who is a vocal critic of the Paris deal. Pruitt has cast doubt on whether carbon dioxide drives global warming, and claimed there is "tremendous disagreement" among scientists over climate change.

Several former and current members of the administration, including Stephen Bannon and Mick Mulvaney, have also previously dismissed evidence for climate science.

Gore, who is now one of the world's leading voices on climate change, said other countries are "aghast" at Trump's retreat from climate policy but said the backlash both within the US and abroad is encouraging.

"The US cities and states have made a tremendous difference and I think the reaction of the rest of the world has minimized the damage done by Donald Trump," he said. "The reaction to Trump is if anything stronger than the actions Trump is taking.

"This experiment with Trump is less than a year old and in science, experiments are sometimes cut short early. I'm not saying this will happen this time, but this feels like a movie I've seen before.

"We went off the rails a bit in the last election. I think the rest of the world understands that the Trump period is an unfortunate departure from what the US is known for when we are at our best. Those who have appreciated US leadership grieve its loss and hope it's temporary."

Brown also said he sees little point attempting to sway the Trump administration. "The official policy of the US is that climate change is a total and complete hoax conceived by Chinese conspirators," the California governor told the Guardian. "That is so preposterous that engagement on that basis is just useless."

However, the California governor said mid-term elections in the US next year may pressure Trump to change position. "He's an action orientated person, not a politician, so who knows," he said.

"Ultimately we won't have a denier in the White House forever. We are engaged in a great political struggle between the deniers who want to turn the world over to fossil fuel interests and scientists and concerned activists who want to see decarbonization.

"Donald Trump is a very small point in the overall climate factor. We are facing a moment of truth over whether we can decarbonize or see civilization itself decline over the next 100 years.

"We have a political sidebar we can tweet about but the existential problem is that species are being destroyed, ecologies are being degraded and mankind is on the chopping block. This isn't the time for politics, it's the time for courageous action."

Brown has attempted to step into the vacuum created by US withdrawal by holding dozens of events and meetings with national leaders, UN officials and NGOs across Europe ahead of the Bonn talks.

The Democratic governor has taken on a role highlighting the impact of sub-national entities such as California, which would have the sixth largest economy in the world if it were a country and has implemented a 'cap and trade' emissions trading system that may soon be linked to a similar mechanism used by European Union countries.

"I want to strengthen the coalition of states and provinces in order to do everything possible to reduce carbon emissions," Brown said.

"The great threat to the world is the radically changing climate and the level of indifference and inertia is so powerful that I find it incumbent to build a counterforce of mayors and governments to work together to protect our climate and get us off the carbon addiction."

The Bonn talks, which will run until 17 November, are largely a technical exercize in helping countries implementing the goals of the Paris agreement, where nearly 200 nations agreed to limit global warming to 2C above the pre-industrial era.

Trump has vowed to pull the US from the agreement but under the pact's rules he will be unable to do so until 2020. In Bonn, the US delegation is expected to follow the lead of the president, a vocal supporter of fossil fuels, by extolling the benefits of "efficient" coal, nuclear energy and natural gas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Al Gore: 'I tried my best' but Trump can't be educated on climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Al Gore has accused Donald Trump of surrounding himself "with the absolute worst of climate deniers" and said he has given up attempting to persuade the president to reverse his dismantling of policies combatting global warming.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is there room for 'debate' in climate change science?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is there room for 'debate' in climate change science?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scientists have responded furiously to claims about climate change made in a live BBC radio interview.

Experts told BBC News that the assertions made by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson on Radio 4's Today programme were simply untrue.

Lord Lawson had claimed that global temperatures had "slightly declined" over the past 10 years.

However, scientists working in the field said the records showed the complete opposite to be the case.

BBC Radio 4's Today programme defended its decision to interview Lord Lawson on Thursday morning in a segment on climate change. The BBC argued that it had a duty to inform listeners about all sides of a debate.

During the interview, Lord Lawson said that "official figures" showed that "during this past 10 years, if anything... average world temperature has slightly declined".

But speaking in a follow-up discussion on Friday morning, Dr Peter Stott from the UK Met Office said the former Chancellor had got the facts wrong.

"We know that 2016 was the warmest on record, over a degree warmer than late 19th Century levels, so this claim that we heard from Nigel Lawson that there's been cooling is simply not true," he told the BBC.

His view was echoed by Prof Richard Betts from the University of Exeter.

"The official figures do not show that the global mean temperature 'has slightly declined'. In fact, they show the opposite - global mean temperature has increased during the past 10 years," he said in a statement.

"The last three years were warmer than the previous seven, and indeed were the warmest on record, and this year is also shaping up to be nearly as warm (probably not quite as warm as last year since the influence of the El Nino has passed, but still a very warm year)."

On Thursday, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its 2016 State of the Climate report, stating that the year was the warmest in 137 years of record keeping.

All over the planet, the peer reviewed study found strong evidence of ongoing warming linked to human activities. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hit new highs, as did global sea levels, while at both poles the extent of sea-ice hit new lows.

Lord Lawson, who was energy secretary in Margaret Thatcher's government before becoming chancellor, now chairs the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank that describes itself as "open-minded on the contested science of global warming".

'Talking nonsense'

He was taking part in a segment following an interview with former US Vice President Al Gore, who was promoting the sequel to his hit documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which made the case for tackling climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

On the programme, Mr Gore made the economic case for renewable energy and said that "climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive" in the 10 years since the first film.

It was suggested to the former Democratic presidential contender that he was going further than the scientific consensus but he said researchers around the world were "virtually unanimous on this and have been for decades", adding that "record downpours" in the UK were a result of climate change.

Lord Lawson was asked why he thought Mr Gore was, in his words, "talking complete nonsense".

The former cabinet minister said that "all the experts say there hasn't been" an increase in extreme weather events, citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But speaking on Friday morning, Dr Stott said Lord Lawson was wrong about the IPCC as well.

The panel had clearly indicated that there had been an increase in extreme events and that these increases were linked to human use of fossil fuels.

"If you take the global picture, the IPCC said very clearly that it is very likely that human influence has contributed to observed global-scale changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes," he told the Today programme.

"If you take the global picture and look at the global fingerprint - yes, you can attribute that."

Many scientists took to Twitter to express their dismay at the airing of what they say were false claims.

Physicist and BBC presenter Professor Brian Cox said it was "irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science".

Fellow physicist and broadcaster Jim al-Khalili tweeted: "For @BBCr4today to bring on Lord Lawson 'in the name of balance' on climate change is both ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on you."

He added: "There should be NO debate anymore about climate change. We (the world minus Trump/Lawson et al) have moved on."

In a statement, the BBC said: "The BBC's role is to hear different views so listeners are informed about all sides of debate and we are required to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anger over 'untrue' climate change claims - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists have responded furiously to claims about climate change made in a live BBC radio interview. Experts told BBC News that the assertions made by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson on Radio 4's Today programme were simply untrue. Lord Lawson had claimed that global temperatures had "slightly declined" over the past 10 years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump's withdrawal leaves the USA as the ONLY country to reject the Paris climate agreement, after Syria confirms it will join!

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump's withdrawal leaves the USA as the ONLY country to reject the Paris climate agreement, after Syria confirms it will join!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US is set to become isolated in its stance on the Paris climate agreement, after reports that Syria is preparing to join the deal.

The Paris deal unites the world's nations in tackling climate change.

Syria and Nicaragua were the only nations outside the deal when it was agreed in 2015. Nicaragua signed in October.

In June the US said it would withdraw, but the rules of the agreement state that this cannot be done until 2020.

Syrian officials at climate talks in Bonn, Germany, were quoted as saying the country was about to send the UN its ratification documents.

Correspondents say Syria was effectively an international pariah when the accord was first signed, and the Paris meetings coincided with some of the fiercest fighting in Syria's civil war, meaning the country was in no position to sign.

Announcing the US decision in June, President Donald Trump said it was part of his "solemn duty to protect America" and he would seek a new deal that would not disadvantage US businesses.

However, the US more recently has hinted that it may shift its position on withdrawing from the deal.

Scientists point out that work to implement the Paris accord must be stepped up if it is to have any chance of success.

The agreement commits the US and 187 other countries to keeping rising global temperatures "well below" 2C and "endeavour to limit" them even more, to 1.5C.

Historically, the US, Europe and China account for almost half of the world's carbon emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Syria 'to join Paris accord', isolating US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US is set to become isolated in its stance on the Paris climate agreement, after reports that Syria is preparing to join the deal. The Paris deal unites the world's nations in tackling climate change. Syria and Nicaragua were the only nations outside the deal when it was agreed in 2015.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global emissions of CO2 in 2017 are projected to rise for the first time in four years... 

# data[].attributes.subject
Global emissions of CO2 in 2017 are projected to rise for the first time in four years... 

# data[].attributes.body
...dashing hopes that a peak might soon be reached.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Global emissions of CO2 in 2017 are projected to rise for the first time in four years, dashing hopes that a peak might soon be reached.

The main cause of the expected growth has been greater use of coal in China as its economy expanded.

Researchers are uncertain if the rise in emissions is a one-off or the start of a new period of CO2 build-up.

Scientists say that a global peak in CO2 before 2020 is needed to limit dangerous global warming this century.

The Global Carbon Project has been analysing and reporting on the scale of emissions of CO2 since 2006.

Carbon output has grown by about 3% per year in that period, but growth essentially declined or remained flat between 2014 and 2016.

The latest figures indicate that in 2017, emissions of CO2 from all human activities grew by about 2% globally.

There is some uncertainty about the data but the researchers involved have concluded that emissions are on the rise again.

"Global CO2 emissions appear to be going up strongly once again after a three-year stable period. This is very disappointing," said the lead author of the study, Prof Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia.

"With global CO2 emissions from human activities estimated at 41 billion tonnes for 2017, time is running out on our ability to keep warming well below 2 degrees C, let alone 1.5C."

The most important element in causing this rise has been China, which is responsible for around 28% of the global total. Emissions there went up 3.5% in 2017, mainly because of increased coal use, driven in the main by a growing economy.

Another important factor in China has been lower water levels in rivers which have seen a drop in the amount of electricity made from hydro-power, with utilities turning to coal and gas to make up the shortfall.

US emissions have continued to decline but the fall has been less than expected. Higher prices saw a drop in the use of natural gas for electricity - with renewables and hydro-power picking up the slack.

Coal use has also grown slightly in the US this year, with consumption up about a half of one percent.

India's emissions are projected to grow by about 2%, which is a considerable decrease from around 6% per year over the last decade.

However, experts believe that this may be a temporary drop-off caused by a number of factors that have hampered the consumption of oil and cement.
Action required
Europe also saw a smaller decline than expected, falling by 0.2% compared with 2.2% over the last 10 years.

One common theme around the world is continued use of gas and oil, says Prof Le Quéré.

"There have been lots of ups and downs in the use of coal but in the background there has been no weakening in the use of oil and gas. And that is quite worrisome."

The report has been launched in Bonn where UN negotiators are trying to move forward with the rules for the Paris climate agreement.

Researchers involved with the study say they are not moving fast enough.

"Lots of diplomats are working out the rules but that is all a little bit meaningless unless they go back home to their countries and ratchet up climate action and that is where the gap is," said Dr Glen Peters, from the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway.

"These countries have to be pushing on with the policies, but everything keeps getting pushed back."

The report is sure to increase tensions in Bonn between developed and developing nations.

There is increasing resentment about the fact that all the focus is on future commitments made under the Paris climate agreement but very little on the years before it becomes active.

Poorer countries want the richer ones to increase their carbon-cutting actions over the next three years.

"The climate will not let us wait until 2020 when the Paris agreement comes into force," said Nicaragua's chief negotiator, Paul Oquist.

"Climate change is happening now and it's vital that immediate actions to cut emissions become a feature of this summit."

The new research on carbon emissions has been published simultaneously in the journals, Nature Climate Change, Earth System Science Data Discussions and Environmental Research Letters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global emissions of CO2 in 2017 are projected to rise for the first time in four years, dashing hopes that a peak might soon be reached. The main cause of the expected growth has been greater use of coal in China as its economy expanded.