The Financial Times has reported that the US has given ground on emissions targets:
The US appeared to take a step forward on the talks for a successor to the Kyoto protocol on climate change on Monday by saying it would agree to binding targets for reducing emissions.
This is more than a little curious. While the US had long pushed the line that countries should make up their own targets, at Bali they accepted that targets should be specified, but not until the round of negotiations had been completed. That is, in Copenhagen in December 2009. To do so at the outset, as the EU wanted, would predetermine the outcomes of the discussions, they said.
The US, it seems, is only prepared ‘to enter into “bindingâ€? obligations to cut greenhouse gases “as part of a global agreementâ€?’ if that agreement includes the developing countries. But it is not clear, according to the Financial Times, whether the developing countries should work to cuts or just limits.
This is not in fact an advance on Bali.
Since Bali the US has itself hosted the second of it’s Major Economies Process meetings in Honolulu in January. The Chairman’s summary tells us virtually nothing.
Press reports on the meeting varied. The People’s Daily Online gave an unemotional account, noting that the US was attempting to mend its image after Bali. The BBC tells us that one EU delegate said:
“I came expecting nothing and was very pleasantly surprised. Normally, we get sterile pre-prepared statements of policy, but this time there was a very frank discussion exploring the very difficult and different conditions facing each of the countries. It was very constructive.”
But then the French Ambassador said:
“It was very low-key but people just got on with it. The talks were very positive… until the final statement was discussed.”
At that point, he said, Russia and India refused to include a statement that they had been discussing mandatory, internationally binding commitments, even though that is exactly what had been discussed.
If you disaggregate the EU then China, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia and India are the 2nd (possibly 1st), 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th largest emitters respectively according to a list quoted in Garnaut’s interim report (pdf file). There is no doubt, as Garnaut is aware, that these countries must come on board with targets if the global problem is to be meaningfully addressed.
Garnaut is proposing a “contraction and convergence” model based on per capita emissions. He sees this as important to get all countries on board. His proposals are designed to promote and encourage participation and co-operation between countries. The concept of a future global emissions budget, shared on a per capita basis, allows many developing countries to increase their emissions. It also obviates the problem of the starting point, which will not necessarily be 1990 in post-Kyoto arrangements. 2005 is one of the dates being discussed.
The remarks reported by the Financial Times were made by Daniel Price, the president’s deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. According to this report he and James Connaughton, chairman of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, were in Paris to prepare the groundwork for the third meeting of Bush’s “Major Economies” group, at the same time, apparently, as EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas travelled to the US for talks on a possible binding international agreement on reducing greenhouse gases.
Something does seem to be afoot, with an announcement likely to synchronise with the next G8 meeting in July in Hokkaido. There would be a certain symmetry in this. It was at the last G8 in Heiligendamm in Germany that Bush committed to the UN process and promised to consider long-term targets. This was seen as very important at the time because Bush’s announcement of his “major economies” process in April 2007 was widely seen as subverting the UN process.
The BBC report suggests that only long-term targets may be announced, and that the absence of short-term targets makes them pretty meaningless. I waded through this lengthy briefing by Chaiman Connaughton and Under Secretary Dobriansky prior to the Honolulu meeting (it runs to nearly 8,000 words). It does seem to me that the Americans are unlikely to go for short-term targets, sticking with their approach that every country needs to work out its own path according to their own circumstances. The Americans do seem to be engaged, however. Perhaps they just like doing things their way.
I did get the impression of forward movement and meetings aplenty, giving hope for a smooth transition when a new President is elected. The basic premise, however, is that we can doddle along and do what we need to do at our convenience.
To answer the question in the title, nothing has changed since the commitments made in Heiligendamm last year. But Bush does seem, against expectations, to be about to honour those commitments.
I think that we are seeing a new form of action offset. Face saving incremental adjustments to positions over an extended programme of summits, with the option of a walkaway at the end. No bullet biting here. The US is playing the world with North Korea’s game. Those disarmament talks have been fruitful after all.
Would anyone like to comment on this article. The claim is that worldwide temperature monitors i.e. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously with the total amount of cooling ranging from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years.
[link]
My suspicion is that the US will only come on board if emissions reduction targets include the opportunity for carbon trading and carbon credits. In this case there is huge economic opportunities; keeping track of everyone’s emissions, trading, projects to absorb carbon, etc. If there is money to made, the US will be there and want control of the proceedings as well.
The problem that I see with the emphasis on carbon emissions reduction targets as an environmental strategy is that there exists a myriad of devastating environmental practices that aren’t being examined (pollution and toxins being dumped into the environment, desertification, acid water…the list goes on). The focus on carbon emissions seems to distract attention from all the other practices which are harmful to the environment.
Aidan@2: Weather is not climate.
To draw any conclusion about climate from one month’s weather data is about as scientific as concluding global warming doesn’t exist because it’s a miserable day in Melbourne today.
Aidan, if that becomes a trend (give it 5 years at least) that is awesome news. More than a little early, however, to start getting excited.
Aidan, I think it’s called cherry picking. I followed his link to the Australian information the article gave and got this:
If you go to our BOM you get this:
Please note that “normal” here is the 1961-1990 average, not the pre-industrial temperature, which is the usual starting point when talking about global warming.
On global temperatures this is what NASA GISS said about 2007:
Or go to this site where, amongst other things, you’ll see the temperature anomalies for 2007 and January 2008.
As mentioned above there is climate and there is weather. The weather at present is wierd, which includes some exceptional cold especially in Central Asia in January. But there is some ugly hot patches a bit further north.
I think the article is (intentional or completely deluded) crap.
Raye, I think you might be right about carbon trading bringing the US on board. The corporate sector is going to want to be in there and the government responds quite well to the corporate sector in the US.
As to other environmental problems, we are just going to have to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.
I’m much more worried about the US locking in bad targets under the present administration, than waiting another 12 months to deal with the next one.
Furthermore, the shape of the US Senate after the 2008 elections will also be crucial. Knocking off a few more Republicans will be helpful.
Aidan - that article (and others spawned by the same series of misrepresentations) has been thoroughy debunked by Tim Lambert, here:
[link]
Aiden,
What you are seeing there is the freezer door effect. As the melting of polar ice accelerates cold water flows out with the currents causing temperature oscillations. Heaven help us when the ice runs out.
It seems the EU and the US are having another spat, with the EU saying that the latest US offer is too little, far too late:
The recent plunge in global temperatures is hardly “weather” and it has ocurred over the past 4-6 months, not one month. While it is undoubtedly due mainly to La Nina, that doesnt explain why it is now materially colder than the last La Nina in 1990-2000. Even before La Nina, there had been no upward trend for about 8 or 10 years anyway.
If temperatures dont rise at least back to 2005 levels in 2 years or so, (after La Nina ends), then AGW is a busted flush. Whatever Lambert and all the rest of the sermonisers like to think.
Remember the Club of Rome, The New Ice Age, Acid Rain and the Ozone Hole? Looks like another envirodoom fiasco is on it’s way.
“AGW is a busted flush. Whatever
Lambert and all the rest of the sermonisersan overwhelming majority of climate scientists like to think.”Kinda looks different that way, eh?
Yes, Bill’s right, we’re heading for a Lukewarm Age. With catastrophic increases in global mizzle.
An “overwhelming majority of climate scientists” believe CO2 has caused some of the warming over the past century. They are undoubtedly right, but that’s where the “overwhelming consensus” begins and ends.
An overwhelmining majority of scientists also expressed plenty of anxiety about famines, the New Ice Age, DDT, Nuclear Waste, the Ozone Hole, Acid Rain etc etc etc as well. What happened?
Complete lack of any upward trend in temperature for a decade, and the current collapse can hardly be described as “weather”. AGW, (as any serious threat), is on borrowed time.
This claim is fraudulent, caused by cherry picking the data as can be seen here
Nonsense Zarquon, the only way you can get an upward trend in recent years is using 1999 as a base - but 1999 was a La Nina year. If you use some average of 19998 (El nino) and 1999 (La Nina) the trend is flat.
Lambert is probably using whichever of the data series suit him best at the time as well. I notice he uses annual data to avoid showing the steep drop in late 2007, which has continued into 2008 (as i suppose you are aware).
You can go to motls.blogspot.com if you want to see recent charts of (I think) all the generally used global data series. You will have to trawl around the site a bit.
They all tell the same picture - no upward trend in recent years and a plummet to below the last La Nina (in the last month or two).
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You cannot measure a climate trend on the basis of one or two years only.
I am measuring a climate trend on 8 or 10 years data not 1 or 2. My comments on 1999 & 1998 refer only to the choice of starting point not the whole of the recent trend - can’t you understand simple english? Unless you use 1999 as a starting point there is no upward trend in recent years - even before the temperature collapse in recent months.
If you look at [link]
as linked to from Tim Lambert’s blog, the trend is +0.181K per decade and you are cherry picking because you start with 1998, an anomalously warm year due to El Nino.
If the world’s population polluted at the Chinese per capita level how much of a decrease in global emissions would we see?
How much of Indonesian emissions are directly under the control of Australia and other importing countries of Indonesian forestry products? Indonesian GHGs can be reduced by countries like Australia very quickly without help from Jakarta.
Aidan, it’s not an article - it’s just a blog post by a naughty boy.
Tricking people into believing that climate change is a hoax is a sad lonely sport for a particularly nerdish type of sociopath nowadays.
Bill, I’ve heard climate scientists say several times now that the difference between weather and climate trends is about 30 years. Anyway the trend seems pretty clear. There are plausible explanations for the highs and lows - El Nino years and major volcanic eruptions, for example. In this comment I quoted this from NASA GISS:
In the last 5 years the solar irradiance has been in its down-phase.
This pic gives you the positive and negative forcings for the past 250 years. If China and India stopped churning out industrial aerosols we’d be in a fair bit of trouble.
Bear in mind that half the climate effects of any emissions take up to 25 years to play out. The other half play out over a few centuries.
You might find it interesting to wade through this long thread which has themes on the Club of Rome thing (as well as Malthus). Apparently Limits to Growth was not as far off the mark as popularly assumed.
wbb, I don’t have the Chinese and the world average for GHG emissions to hand, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were similar. China is well ahead of what we should be aiming for.
Hmmm - that’s bad then, Brian. Add to that, that by 2050, we will have the equivalent of two more China’s in global human population, and we ain’t looking too pretty.
Meanwhile governments are still nowhere near being brave enough to tell their constituents that material consumption must be cut deeply. Alternative technology will not fly our current overly consumptive economies. Not soon enough anyway.
But saying such makes me a doom-monger or millenarian etc!! Apparently the only mature perspective comes through rose-coloured glasses.
The wide-spread denialism - even at such gatherings as this - is almost hard to believe. It is text-book. Everybody still thinks we can have our cake and eat it too. A touching faith indeed.
I was taught the findings of the Club of Rome at high school in 1975 or so. I think there is a narrow cohort of 45 - 46 year olds who have no trouble accepting climate change science. The syllabus was obviously changed shortly thereafter, because nobody else seems to be worried.
The elephant in the room has always been human population. However to even broach the subject is to be met with immediate suspicion. Misanthropy is the usual charge, ironically. (Nevertheless human population cannot be turned around quickly and 35 years later we no longer have time for anything except quick solutions.)
wbb, on being a doom-monger, in November 2006 when the Stern Review came out he said we should aim for 550 ppm CO2e because less than that was impractical. Now Garnaut is saying it should be 450 ppm because that is the lowest that is at all feasible.
Lovelock was saying we’ve tipped and was called a doom-monger.
In November 2007 Hansen was saying that we passed tipping points on large ice sheet disintegration, significant sea level rises and species loss when we were in the 300-350 ppm zone. Logically we should get back to the lower end of that band if we want to preserve the world as we knew it. Remember that CO2 hasn’t been over 300 ppm for a million years and 125K years ago we had sea levels 4-6 metres higher than now.
In his Iowa testimony Hansen says flat out that long-term climate sensitivity (for 560 ppm) is 6C at the midpoint. That means complete deglaciation (70 metres sea-leve rise) and the kind of planet Lovelock was talking about (inhabitable from about Melbourne south, if it’s still there!).
Ronald Wright in his Short History of Civilisation said we started to use the planet unsustainably in net terms some time in the 1970s, around the time when the Club of Rome report came out. On population this graph illustrates where we’re at.
That’s a graphic graph, Brian. I’d like to see that as the new masthead for LP. I’ll hop over to the fix our website thread.
Btw - the blurb for the Aust 2020 climate change section says something about adapting our economy to facilitate population growth.
I give up.
To wit.
To whooooo!!
You are just deliberately osfuscating Zarquon. That +0.181K per decade upward trend is since 1979. I clearly said there has been no upward trend in the last 8 or 10 years, and there hasn’t been.
Bill,
1997/98 was an El Nino and there are good physical reasons to conclude that the planet is likely to be warmer during such an episode. With a temperature anomaly of up to 4C in the Eastern Pacific, 1998 certainly was anomalously warm. This year (July to June), as a La Nina, I would expect to be a bit cooler than it otherwise would have been.
Picking 1998 as the starting year from which to judge a trend, when it was the daisy sticking well above the level of the (quickly growing) grass, is legerdemain in statistical terms. Global temperature is currently increasing somewhere between 0.24 and 0.28C per decade (different data sets, so there is a sampling error).
Anyone in a research institution who is qualified in science or statistics and who maintains that the data suggests global cooling or even no trends from 1998 should be immediately made to hand back the keys to their office. That would put a few Australian academics and emeritus profs on the street.
Those who are willing to repeat such guff must have all their statements treated with the utmost caution, because who knows where such credulity may lead one?
I did not pick 1998 as a starting pointt, I said “some average” of 1998 & 1999 would be appropriate, (1998 being El Nino and 1999 being a La Nina year). I know some “skeptics” do use 1998 as a starting point, but like Zarquon you didnt bother reading what I actually posted.
Global temperature is not currently increasing at all, and there has been no upward trend over the past 8-10 years - unless you choose 1999 as the starting point. Anyone who can read a chart can see that, but facts are irrelevant to moralising idealogues.
Yes there is currently a La Nina so you would expect temperatures to be cooler - but why is the current La Nina cooler than the last La Nina (1999), if there is an underlying upwards trend? Why also did the last 2 El Ninos (2002/3 and 2006/7), cause minmal temperature rises if there is an underlying upward trend? Why are the 2 last El Ninos both cooler than the 1998 El Nino, if there is an upward trend?
Lets see if you can address any of those questions.
Bill, you are confusing me. You ask
NASA GISS say
You say that the last La Niña was in 1999. Wikipedia says:
Why was 1998 so strong? Personally I don’t know. Why was 1998 statistically the same in the US as 1934? All I know is that there was a warm blob on North America in the 1930s, on less than 2% of the planet.
But most importantly, starting from some average of 1998 and 1999 is as arbitrary as starting from 1998. And any trend line drawn over the last 10 years alone is about the weather not about climate.
Aidan et al interested in that issue - here is what NASA’s Jim Hansen, one of the grandfathers of climate science, has to say about the issue:
Cold Weather