UBFCCC SBSTA not really the place for such a report. What's wrong with the AR5 process?
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Josh Horton <[email protected]>wrote: > At the same time, raising the profile of geoengineering on the > international agenda would probably result in increased funding and > additional resources. IPCC may not be the right vehicle. Maybe a > UNFCCC subsidiary body? A focused, strategic effort could give > research a shot in the arm. > > Josh > > > On Jan 2, 11:35 am, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It is not clear to me that doing an IPCC report on geoengineering would > be > > an effective use of everybody's time. People are already starting to plan > > the treatment of geoengineering in AR5 with a meeting coming up in Peru > in > > June. These IPCC processes are notoriously time consuming. > > > > There really is not that much research going on because funding in this > area > > is extremely limited. My own sense is that at this point most scientists > > involved in this area could benefit by spending more time in their labs > and > > offices doing science and less time going to meetings talking about > > non-science. > > > > Geoengineering is an area where the ratio of talk to actual new facts is > > startlingly high. > > > > We recently had the Royal Society report. How much has changed since > then? > > > > ___________________________________________________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]:// > dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Emily <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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_o. > .. > > >> 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/2010/12/1. > .. > > >> < > > >>http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2010/12/1. > .. > > > > >> (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 > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O Oliver Morton Energy and Environment Editor The Economist +44 7971 064 059 O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O -- 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.
