I am afraid it is not true that "The commitments coming out of Copenhagen substantially bend the curve, and at the higher end, almost get us to the 2C guardrail. "
I analysed tha committments in some detail and calculated that 2020 emissions would be 20% higher than today with no peak in sight making the 2 degree limit impossible to achieve http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm Subsequently Nature published a paper from the Potsdam Institute confirming my calculations, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7292/full/4641126a.html Their main conclusions were · Global emissions in 2020 could thus be up to 20% higher than today ( I would say will be at least!) · Current pledges mean a greater than 50% chance that warming will exceed 3°C by 2100 ( 2070 is my estimate -on their figures) The following is the text of a one pager that I did on this subject CO2 Emissions: What the "Big" Countries Are Doing After Copenhagen all countries were asked to make the best commitments for emissions reductions to be achieved by 2020.(1) I have taken the current emissions for all countries compiled by the USA Environment Information Administration and used these commitments to predict the world overall emissions in 2020. My conclusion is that emissions in 2020 will be 20% higher than now with no peak or reduction in emissions in sight.(2) A very small number of countries are responsible for a very high proportion of overall emissions. Here I have taken as examples just the eight countries with the highest emissions at the moment. This should demonstrate why no overall reduction is likely in the near future. These are in reverse alphabetical order. USA Reduction by 17% based on 2005 emissions.17% may not sound much but at least it is clear and based on reduction from a recent level. Canada is offering the same as the USA. The United Kingdom. Reduction of 20% (same as rest of the EC. Or 30% with conditions) but based on 1990 emissions. Since the UK already claims to have achieved a 20% reduction since 1990 (3) this isn't offering much in the next decade to 2020. Russia 15 to 25% reduction based on 1990. Russian emissions dropped sharply after the break up of the USSR in 1989. By 40% by 2000.(5) This reduction in comparison with 1990 should therefore be easy to achieve even with continued increase towards 2020. This promise is also conditional on the inclusion of Russian forests in the calculation. India 20 to 25% reduction in "Carbon Intensity".(5) Carbon intensity means emissions in comparison with GDP (economic output). In the 10 years from 1996 to 2007 India's GDP increased by a factor of 2.9 so, assuming a similar economic future, a reduction in carbon intensity of 25% would allow emissions to more than double between 2010 and 2020. Since India's emissions only increased by 60% between 1997 to 2007, this leaves room for a much greater rate of increase of emissions. Japan 25% reduction but once again based on 1990. However Japan does not seem to have reduced its emissions since 1990. In fact they have probably increased making this 25% difficult to achieve. Germany. Reduction of 20% (same as rest of the EC. Or 30% with conditions) but based on 1990 emissions. Since Germany claims to have already achieved a 28.5% reduction since 1990 (4) no further reduction is being promised by 2020. China. 40 to 45% reduction in "Carbon Intensity".(5) Carbon intensity means emissions in comparison with GDP (economic output). In the 10 years from 1996 to 2007 Chinese GDP increased by a factor of 3.5 so, assuming a similar economic future, a reduction in carbon intensity of 45% would allow emissions to double between 2010 and 2020 exactly as they did from 1997 to 2007 My conclusion is that most countries are "sandbagging" or fudging the numbers in various ways. In particular the use of 1990 as a base makes percentage offers look much better in most cases or as The Norwegian friends of the Earth put it "There is currently no limit for how much of the Kyoto surplus that can be transferred to a new climate deal. This has the potential to severely weaken a new deal." Of the eight above, only three seem to be offering anything that could be described as better than "business as usual". (USA, Canada & Japan) One other example will also demonstrate a fudge likely to be used by many developing but prosperous nations. Singapore has offered to reduce emissions by 16% in comparison with Business As Usual. Singapore has defined their BAU as 5% growth in emissions per year and has offered to reduce this by 16% bringing it to 4.2% per year. However their emissions growth over the last 10 years was 3.6% so that should be easy enough! This is possible because developing nations can define "business as usual" for themselves. John Gorman. Chartered Engineer. Hampshire, UK April 2010 Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, UK (1) http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php UN official website. (2) www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm My analysis of Copenhagen numbers. (3) http://www.defra.gov.uk/News/2008/080131c.htm Publicity newsletter from UK Dept of environment. (4) http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=b58bd48d4f3245eca32edc7c4&id=4295fbad6f&e=c902cf3aad Quoting German department of Environment (5) http://unfccc.int/home/items/5265.php UN list of commitments by developing countries. (6) http://naturvernforbundet.no/getfile.php/Dokumenter/rapporter/2009/Fact-Sheet-Russia.pdf FoE Norway (7) www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/12/03/true-or-false-singapore-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-growth-by-16-from-2020-bau-levels/ And a recent comrehensive letter that I wrote to our new Minister for Climate Change is at http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm Regards john gorman From: Wil Burns To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Digest for [email protected] - 4 Messages in 4 Topics In response to Josh's comment about the UNFCCC's track record, I think that's a bit unfair. The commitments coming out of Copenhagen substantially bend the curve, and at the higher end, almost get us to the 2C guardrail. Now, we obviously have to insert the substantial caveats, i.e. the Accord is not legally binding, and the Parties may not achieve the upper end of the commitments. But, this is an iterative process, and there's still hope that the parallel AWG processes may get us where we need to be. What's the alternative? Unilateral/bilateral pursuit of geoengineering strategies could undermine trust even further and scupper efforts to cooperate to reduce emissions, which could put us in a far worse place, since, as we know, geoengineering is a band aid, not a long-term solution. And, as for other multilateral regimes, I guess I would ask which one makes sense? The London Dumping Convention doesn't make sense; it has an extremely limited membership, is perceived to be a tool of the North by many countries in the South, and doesn't address the issues I discussed in my original post, i.e. scientific expertise in this context, the coordination of geoengineering and mitigation/adaptation strategies, and possible claims for credits. The Environmental Modification Convention suffers from even more infirmities. So, what regime? You could look to UNCLOS for some of the schemes, but again, I find the UNFCCC to make more sense when one applies the salutary principles of lex specialis. wil On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: Today's Topic Summary Group: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/topics a.. Does everyone agree with everything in the Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's America's Climate Choices report [1 Update] b.. Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's America's Climate Choices report [1 Update] c.. Oil leak solutions, Innocentive [1 Update] d.. Digest for [email protected] - 7 Messages in 4 Topics [1 Update] Topic: Does everyone agree with everything in the Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's America's Climate Choices report Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> May 24 09:47PM -0700 ^ Folks, I am surprised that the section on Solar Radiation Management the National Academy's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" report has received almost no comment in this group or in the media. This is the first time in 18 years that the National Academies have weighed in on geoengineering, and they do so by calling for research into geoengineering and there is nary a mention in the press. The National Academies call for research into solar radiation management and everyone treats it as "ho-hum, what else is new?". (Eli Kintisch was an exception with a short post in ScienceInsider: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/national-academy-report-calls-fo.html) I find it amazing that the US National Academies call for research into geoengineering options and it is met with a yawn. Have we come to the point where nearly everybody (except those involved in the CBD process) thinks it is obvious this research is necessary? I think we have reached an important new milestone. Researching solar radiation management has ceased to be controversial (although field testing and deployment no doubt continues to be so). Comments? Best, Ken PS. Here is an extract. However, the various SRM proposals and their consequences need to be examined, as long as such research does not replace or reduce research on fundamental understanding of climate change or other approaches to limiting climate change or adapting to its impacts. Some key SRM-related research needs, discussed in Chapter 15, include the following: - Improve understanding of the physical potential and technical feasibility of SRM and other geoengineering approaches. - Evaluate the potential consequences of SRM approaches on other aspects of the Earth system, including ecosystems on land and in the oceans. - Develop and evaluate systems of governance that would provide a model for how to decide whether, when, and how to intentionally intervene in the climate system. - Measure and evaluate public attitudes and develop approaches that effectively inform and engage the public in decisions regarding SRM. On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Ken Caldeira < -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. Topic: Solar Radiation Management section of National Academy's America's Climate Choices report John Nissen <[email protected]> May 22 03:05AM -0700 ^ Hi Ken, Andrew, and everybody, I am feeling the heat! I am in Finland with Albert Kallio, and it is extraordinarily hot - with risk of sunburn, as sun relentlessly beats down from early in the morning till late at night. This is the kind of weather they expect in July. Albert has just pointed me to the cryosphere today web site: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ I think we have an emergency now. The Arctic sea ice is extremely thin in many places, and whole sections could melt away this summer, since it is only May. We could have a record minimum sea ice extent this year, lower even than 2007. There is no sign of a recovery. Perhaps even worse, there is extraordinarily little snow, on Siberia and other Arctic and sub-Arctic land masses, compared to the same time of year for previous years. If this isn't an emergency, I don't know what is. The fuse on the time-bomb is lit. We may have left it too late. Even the most drastic use of stratospheric aerosols may not be enough to prevent catastrophic warming of the Arctic. How much worse does it have to get before we act? What sense is there for further delay? John ---- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. Topic: Oil leak solutions, Innocentive david kubiak <[email protected]> May 21 05:33PM -0700 ^ Cool (and literal) grassroots solution for the Gulf oil spill http://www.wimp.com/solutionoil/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. Topic: Digest for [email protected] - 7 Messages in 4 Topics Josh <[email protected]> May 21 04:23AM -0700 ^ Wil, I agree with you in principle, but as a practical matter making geoengineering research (let alone deployment) contingent on "overwhelming support" within UNFCCC is deeply problematic. The UNFCCC has been in existence for 20 years now, and has yet to take concrete steps to reduce GHG emissions by any significant amount. Given this record, the urgency of beginning substantive research, and the possibility of passing tipping points and climate emergencies, relying on UNFCCC is a flawed political strategy. There are other multilateral and bilateral structures that are more promising sites for international governance (though probably not CBD!). Josh -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 1702 Arlington Blvd. El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA Ph: 650.281.9126 Fax: 510.779.5361 [email protected] http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site: http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
