Dear All,
I proposed to Yvo DeBoer in 1008 that he might like to request the IPCC
to complete a rapid special report on Active mitigation options such as
geo-engineering. This might follow the report series the IPCC have done
on renewables etc.
At that point Yvo felt that the IPCC coverage of geo-eng in the AR4
would cover it.
Perhaps we could make a stronger case for IPCC to do something useful on
geo-eng. The new UNFCCC leadership and also the post Copenhagen /
Cancun context may help gain an IPCC review of options and secure
greater dialogue and inclusion in the UNFCCC texts, such as in the KP,
LCA, REDD or CDM text.
where would it best be in the UNFCCC text and what would it need to say.
The KP and LCA text already talks about 'reduction of emissions and
removal by sinks' How can this be explored further?
best,
Emily.
On 30/12/2010 14:22, John Nissen wrote:
Thanks, John for these reduction requirements. They are clearly
impossible to achieve, but even if they could be achieved would not
guarantee keeping within 2 degrees this century. And 2 degrees is far
from safe. We have no option but to remove CO2 from the atmosphere
(CDR) at an increasing rate until the removal is faster than the
addition from emissions. But what's the timescale? Is global warming
the most immediate threat?
Ocean acidification is proceeding at an alarming rate. It will soon
reach a level in the Arctic where shells cannot form and the marine
food chain is affected [1] [2]. Thus we have only a decade or two to
reduce CO2 levels below 350 ppm. CO2 removal becomes imperative, and
has to reach the rate of emissions within a decade so that the CO2
level starts falling.
On top of these problems we have the Arctic sea ice retreat, which has
to be halted to avoid massive methane discharge from permafrost
otherwise all plans to halt global warming would be trashed. CO2
reduction will not have any appreciable effect in the timescales - so
we have to cool the Arctic quickly [3]. We have no option but use
solar radiation management (SRM), possibly supplemented by other more
specific measures to retain the sea ice.
My sincere hope for 2011 is that the necessity for these urgent
actions - both CDR and SRM types of geoengineering - will finally be
recognised in international negotiations, to put our global society on
a new safe path towards a successful future [4]. Please help in
lobbying for this.
Best wishes for the New Year,
John
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603092018.htm
[2] http://www.bitsofscience.org/ocean-acidification-faster-438/
[3] http://www.catlin.com/cgl/media/press_releases/pr_2009/209-10-15/
[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed
See especially Chapter 14 "Why do some societies make disastrous
decisions?"
---
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, John Gorman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thanks, Emily, for finding this FoE report
The report (1) looks at the emissions from each country now, and
projections for 2020 and 2050. I did the same,from a different
perspective, for my document "Why Copenhagen Failed" (2) so I have
checked their calculations and they are correct.
These are the reductions that would be required from the largest
eight emitters by 2020 in order to keep within the 2 degree C
rise;(in alphabetical order)
Canada 80% reduction by 2020
China 20% reduction by 2020
Germany 63% reduction by 2020
India 63% /increase/ by 2020
Japan 65% reduction by 2020
Russia 80% reduction by 2020
UK 57%reduction by 2020
USA 80% reduction by 2020
Notes
-These figures contain no fudges like "emissions intensity" or
basing reductions on 1990. Reductions are from now -and real.
-The 20% reduction for China is just as impossible as the 80% for
the USA. China expects 300 million people to move from subsistence
agriculture to the towns by 2030 and predicted 100% increase.
-The increase allowed to India is due to the very low per capita
emission now but is still far less than their post Copenhagen
prediction of 100% increase.(3)
The obvious impossibility of achieving these reductions is the
central argument for geoengineering research -now.
John Gorman
(1)
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2010/12/15/CarbonBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf
<http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2010/12/15/CarbonBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf>
(2) http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm
<http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm>
(3)Last page of letter to Chris Huhne UK Minister for Energy at
http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm
<http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters.htm>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emily" < [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
To: "geo-engineering grp" < [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:37 PM
Subject: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the Earth EWNI report
urges very
deep and rapid emission cuts
Hi,
please read the last sentence in particular: FoE now join WWF in
accepting the possible need for geo-engineering. I agree with this
analysis.
I am trying to track down a link tot he report - if you have one,
please
circulate.
manyt hanks and Best wishes,
Emily.
RECKLESS GAMBLERS
key conclusions..
• Recent climate science and risk analysis
show that there is now a
very small remaining safe level of
greenhouse gas emissions compatible
with preventing dangerous climate
change.
• A 2 degrees temperature rise can
no longer be considered “safe”; even
1.5 degrees carries with it major risks.
• Even a Global Carbon Budget of
1100 Gigatonnes of CO 2 equivalent
from now to 2050, which would
give a 75% chance of exceeding
1.5 degrees, and a 30% chance of
exceeding 2 degrees, would require
unprecedented emissions reductions
which go far beyond those currently
contemplated by politicians. Reducing
risks further would require even
tougher action.
• If dangerous climate change is to
be averted it will require immediate
and significant changes to how we
fuel our economies in virtually all
countries, it will require systemic
action across all sectors of the
economies of all countries.
• As leaders of countries with large
historical and current emissions,
politicians in developed countries must
shoulder the blame for increasing
the risk of dangerous climate
change. They will need to make deep
emissions reductions and provide
hundreds of billions of dollars for
developing countries to grow without
carbon-intensive energy.
• Living within the small remaining
global carbon budget, if shared out
on an equal per capita basis between
2010 and 2050, would require
reductions in emissions in developed
countries of around 8-15 per cent
per annum, immediate emissions
reductions in some developing
countries, an early peak and decline
in emissions in others, and some
countries would be able to continue
to increase emissions from their very
low baseline. These are just illustrative
figures, not prescriptions but if one
group of countries emits more than
these amounts, it would require
corresponding reductions in what
other countries emit and the scope for
this is now very limited. Achieving cuts
in developing countries will require
substantial financial and technology
transfers from developed countries.
• Urgent research and debate needs
to be carried out - alongside urgent
action to reduce emissions - to identify
exactly how to share out the remaining
global carbon budget and whether
these reductions are technically
possible and, if not, whether
approaches using negative emissions
or even geo-engineering are possible
or acceptable.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> .
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
<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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:geoengineering%[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.
--
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.
