You ask:

What does ‘decisive action’ constitute, short of violating the sovereignty of Indonesia, Brazil, etc. or throwing money at people?

Did you actually take the time to read my post # 63? Yes, I know it’s probably a bit long, but I’m trying to make a constructive argument for positive action. It would be great to see some real action rather than the endless political point-scoring and unresolved arguments about emission targets.

Ross Garnaut keeps telling us we’ve wasted the last ten years (I watched his National Press Club speech and went to his presentation in the Adelaide Town Hall on Tuesday), so let’s get on with it. We can do something NOW by addressing the problem of deforestation.

I posted Point 6 of the Declaration of Leaders Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change :

We recognize that actions to reduce emissions, including from deforestation and forest degradation, and to increase removals by sinks in the land use, land use change, and forestry sector, including cooperation on tackling forest fires, can make a contribution to stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These actions also reduce climate change impacts and can have significant co-benefits by maintaining multiple economic goods and ecological services. Our nations will continue to cooperate on capacity-building and demonstration activities; on innovative solutions, including financing, to reduce emissions and increase removals by sinks; and on methodological issues. We also stress the need to improve forest-related governance and cooperative actions at all levels.

This declaration was agreed by the leaders of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

You might notice this list includes Brazil and Indonesia.

Point 6 is a big paragraph isn’t it? I’ll try and break it down for you into more easily digestible chunks…

All of these world leaders agreed on taking action to address deforestation and forest degradation.

They also agreed to:

continue to cooperate on capacity-building and demonstration activities; on innovative solutions, including financing, to reduce emissions and increase removals by sinks; and on methodological issues. We also stress the need to improve forest-related governance and cooperative actions at all levels.

This is where richer countries such as Australia, Norway, Germany, Britain etc can come in and offer assistance. (Refer my posts # 61 & 63.)

Other highly influential people such as Nicholas Stern, Ross Garnaut and Tony Blair/The Climate Group also support richer countries helping poorer countries to avoid deforestation. If you want to know more, read their reports.

So, just to clarify, world leaders have acknowledged that:

We recognize that actions to reduce emissions, including from deforestation and forest degradation, and to increase removals by sinks in the land use, land use change, and forestry sector, including cooperation on tackling forest fires, can make a contribution to stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These actions also reduce climate change impacts and can have significant co-benefits by maintaining multiple economic goods and ecological services.

I reiterate the main thrust of my post # 63:

In light of the Major Economies Leaders Declaration, Kevin Rudd should immediately take decisive action and substantially increase funding for the International Forest Carbon Initiative. He should join a formal alliance of world leaders to cooperate and develop an urgent strategic plan to address global deforestation, particularly for the period 2008 – 2012, while forests remain unprotected by the Kyoto Protocol.

I look forward to Kevin Rudd and other world leaders providing a progress report on their practical and effective actions to reduce global deforestation at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009.

I am delighted to see that world leaders have formally recognised the need to address the problem of deforestation.

Point 6 of the Declaration of Leaders Meeting of Major Economies on Energy Security and Climate Change notes:

We recognize that actions to reduce emissions, including from deforestation and forest degradation, and to increase removals by sinks in the land use, land use change, and forestry sector, including cooperation on tackling forest fires, can make a contribution to stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These actions also reduce climate change impacts and can have significant co-benefits by maintaining multiple economic goods and ecological services. Our nations will continue to cooperate on capacity-building and demonstration activities; on innovative solutions, including financing, to reduce emissions and increase removals by sinks; and on methodological issues. We also stress the need to improve forest-related governance and cooperative actions at all levels.

As I outlined on the rainforest and emissions-shifting blog, since early last year, I’ve written many letters to both major parties re the problem of deforestation. I wrote more letters again earlier this year, including a letter to Kevin Rudd registering my concern that the budget continue to include funding for the $200 million Global Initiative on Forests and Climate announced by the Howard government last year, and a letter to Penny Wong asking her to raise the issue of deforestation at the Major Economies meeting held in Hawaii at the end of January.

On 24 March I sent another letter to Kevin Rudd to:

ask that the Australian government substantially increase funding for Australia’s Global Initiative on Forests and Climate…

I also asked:

As our Prime Minister, will you pick up the gauntlet and join other world leaders, such as Mr Stoltenberg and Prince Charles, and establish a formal alliance to cooperate and develop an urgent strategic plan to address global deforestation between 2008 – 2012?

I copied the letter to Brendan Nelson, Penny Wong, Greg Hunt and Bob Brown.

I subsequently used this letter as the basis for my submission to the Garnaut Review and my letter to Tony Blair.

In May, I received a letter from the Department of Climate Change thanking me for my letter, and saying “the government shares your concerns” etc and “this is why the government announced the $200 million International Forest Climate Initiative” (?!)

While I was delighted the government had maintained funding for the forests initiative, I was rather amused at this “new” announcement… The letter also advised that the funds were “available for use in the period 2008 – 2012”.

In late June, I received a letter from Greg Hunt advising he had made representations on my behalf to Penny Wong, and he enclosed a letter from her which noted “current mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol do not provide incentives for action on avoided deforestation.” Curiously, although the letter from Penny Wong acknowledged that “the Australian Government is actively involved in international efforts to reduce deforestation” it didn’t mention the $200 million International Forests Carbon Initiative. Also, while the letter mentioned “my department has previously responded to Ms Hart on these issues and I attach this correspondence for your information” a copy of the letter sent to me in May describing the International Forest Carbon Initiative was not attached.

Since the Coalition announced the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate in March 2007, the profile of the global deforestation problem has been raised considerably. Norway in particular rose to the occasion in Bali when Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg announced his country was going to provide $US500 million a year to address deforestation. http://www.norway.org/policy/environment/avskoging_eng.htm

While Australia had been a world leader last year with its $200 million forests initiative (which the Rudd government has advised me is going to be spread over four years), Norway’s Jens Stoltenberg certainly upped the ante with his announcement.

During the Convention on Biological Diversity recently, Angela Merkel told delegates that Germany would spend an additional 500 million euros on a network of protected forest areas until 2012. After that, Germany would boost spending to 500 million euros per year from an annual 200 million now. http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINL2873254120080528?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

Recently Jens Stoltenberg and Britain’s Gordon Brown announced a joint $US211 million initiative to conserve rainforests in the Congo Basin. http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0624-congo.html

In The Autralian yesterday, Kevin Rudd argued that:

the economics tells us that the cost of responsible action is much less than if we as a planet fail to act on climate change now. The longer we delay, the higher the cost.

Addressing the other 15 leaders of the major economies at the Hokkaido summit today, Kevin Rudd “indicated that Australia wants to see a new grand bargain, a new grand consensus between developed and developing countries so that we can act together to bring down greenhouse gas emissions in order to save the planet,” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23994000-601,00.html

So what are we waiting for?

Kevin Rudd should immediately increase funding for the International Forest Carbon Initiative and join a formal alliance of other world leaders to address the problem of deforestation. After all, the famous Stern Review notes that:

curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has the potential to offer significant reductions fairly quickly. (p.537)

The Garnaut draft report also notes that:

progress will require developed countries including Australia to put significant sums on the table for emissions reductions that may have no formal international status for the time being. (p.328)

I received a letter from Christine Milne yesterday in which she stated:

…in my capacity as Vice President of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) I have been actively highlighting the urgent need for forest protection as one of the best tools at our disposal for fighting climate change.

Senator Milne also noted:

I appreciate your action in encouraging the Rudd government to support moves to protect tropical rainforests globally. In the Senate and beyond, we Greens will also be working tirelessly to encourage all old forest protection, be they the rainforests of Sumatra or the temperate forests of the Weld Valley in Tasmania, and in doing so help tackle climate change at one of its sources.

I look forward to seeing Senator Milne taking decisive action on this. Hopefully both she and Greg Hunt will encourage Kevin Rudd to substantially increase funding for the International Forests Carbon Initiative and join a formal alliance of other world leaders to address this problem.

When he addressed the other major economies leaders today, Kevin Rudd said:

The buck stops with us. It doesn’t stop with anyone else. It stops at this table. http://news.smh.com.au/world/g8-made-progress-on-climate-talks-rudd-20080709-3c84.html

This sounds like a man who wants to take decisive action…

I look forward to Kevin Rudd and other world leaders providing a progress report on their practical and effective actions to reduce global deforestation at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009.

OPT - they appear to have engaged with the slogan/jargon-rubric of C&C and not to have actually engaged with C&C i.e. the calculating model itself. The option to set a population base year effectively deals with that argument. Tis has been pointed out in the past. Perhpas the institutional memory isn’t working well. C&C is actually the only model that specifically engages with ‘population’ - the source of OPT’s complaint is elsewhere.

Aubrey

Garnaut responded:

Well the meeting in Copenhagen is a critical one. That will be the meeting that will probably be decisive in determining whether we’ve got good global arrangements from 2013. And I didn’t say Australia should play the leading role. We can’t play the leading role, others have already done that. We should play our full part as one of the developed countries. Developed countries need to play the leading role. (My emphasis)

Actually, Australia took a leading role in addressing a serious environmental problem when it launched the $200 million Global Initiative on Forests and Climate back in March 2007. Amongst other actions, it also hosted the High Level Meeting on Forests and Climate in July 2007, and hosted APEC in September, where the Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership was launched and the Sydney Declaration acknowledged the importance of forests. I suggest these actions were useful in raising the profile of the deforestation problem and probably influential in Bali, where delegates agreed to consider including forest protection mechanisms in the new global climate change agreement.

The $200 million Global Initiative on Forests and Climate has now been renamed the International Forest Carbon Initiative. According to correspondence I have received, funding remains at $200 million. Australia’s contribution has now been overtaken by countries such as Norway and Germany http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINL2873254120080528

In my submission to the Garnaut Review, I suggest prime minister Kevin Rudd should join a formal international alliance of world leaders to address the problem of global deforestation, particularly during the period 2008-2012 while forests remain unprotected by the Kyoto Protocol.

Garnaut’s draft report notes: (Chapter 13 Deepening International Collaboration, 13.7 Forestry-related emissions, p. 328)

Although most forestry-related emissions are in developing countries, developed countries have a critical role to play. Apart from increasing sequestration within their own borders, they can help with emissions monitoring, and they can guarantee funding to developing countries if emissions reductions are achieved. Most importantly, they can kick-start action on a bilateral basis.

Given the contentious and complex nature of the issue, it is possible that a satisfactory agreement on forest-related emissions will be several years in the making. In the interim, bilateral initiatives and regional cooperation will be particularly important.

Given the nature of its neighbourhood, it stands to reason that Australia’s regional initiatives will have a focus, albeit not exclusive, on forestry (Box 13.3).

Progress will require developed countries including Australia to put significant sums on the table for emissions reductions that may have no formal international status for the time being.

(My emphasis).

Sounds like a good argument for Australia to put a lot more money into its International Forest Carbon Initiative…

I also used my Garnaut submission as the basis of a letter on this issue to Tony Blair in April. (Actually, Brian encouraged me to lobby Tony Blair during our discussions on the Rainforests and emissions-shifting blog earlier this year.)

It is heartening that the Blair/Climate Group report indicates that this issue is being taken seriously. I hope avoided deforestation will be a major topic of discussion at the upcoming G8 and Major Economies meetings.

The economic drivers of deforestation, in particular the complex problems which arise from over-consumption in the developed world and the growing population in the developing world have to be addressed urgently. It is difficult to know how this sustainability problem is going to be solved, as the global population is tipped to grow to over 9 billion by 2050 and could even approach 12 billion if fertility rates in developing countries remain constant at recent levels. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/English.pdf

During the draft report launch, Garnaut said that “developed countries need to play the leading role” at the critical negotiations in Copenhagen.

It would be an excellent demonstration of leadership if an alliance of world leaders could table a progress report on their efforts to reduce global deforestation at the Copenhagen meeting in 2009.

To clean water and clean food I would add clean energy.

This is really what we need to focus on.

For example, claims from some quarters that the Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed if Australia, which emits less than 2 per cent of global greenhouse gases, does not adopt an ETS are patent nonsense.

Chicken Little arguments are no substitute for getting right the important details on issues of far-reaching consequence,

There are two issues here, the science of the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on the Great Barrier Reef, and question as to whether Australia should be a “free rider” and leave climate change mitigation to the rest of the world.

The science of the impact of climate change and ocean acidification is clear. Unfortunately the Barrier Reef will most probably be lost or seriously degraded with less than 2 degrees C of warming (see for example here. Maybe if the rest of the world drastically reduced emissions and Australia did not adopt an ETS and did little else, the Barrier Reef might be saved. This would entail Australia being a “free-rider” in a global prisoner’s dilemma. Australians are among the worlds worst per-capita greenhouse gas emitters, so free-riding would seriously undermine global climate change policy. It would be hard to come up with a more abominable policy position.

Much of Costa’s argument is that owners of highly greenhouse gas intensive power stations should be compensated for the loss of asset value. Generators are able to pass on most of their costs onto consumers, so even small amounts of compensation can result in windfall profits. When I buy shares, they are likely to earn more than if I put the same amount of money in the bank. This is because I take a risk - if I lose money I am not entitled to compensation. People have known that greenhouse pollution causes climate change for a very long time. Forcing polluters to internalise these costs may decrease their share price, just like attempting to reduce smoking and taxing it may decrease the share price of tobacco companies. Compensating greenhouse polluters for their loss of asset value is as silly as compensating tobacco companies would be.

At the moment Costa wants to privatise NSW electricity generators. He knows he will get a better price if the costs of mitigating climate change are shifted away from the assets that he is trying to sell. Costa’s arguments about climate change are a rent seeking exercise. It seems that Costa is engaging in rent seeking by crying wolf about closure of brown coal fired power stations.

Pragmatic response from Michael Costa in The Australian this morning: Garnaut report a first step that falls short

David Burchell is also worth a read for another perspective: Act yes, but consider real costs

Needless to say, I think John Cosco makes a very pertinent point in “Letters to the Editor” when he raises the issue of the impact of developing world population growth.

What is your response to these statements on the Optimum Population Trust website? http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.climate.html

(Note: This text had some links embedded, which don’t seem to have transferred across. Click on the link above and scroll down the page to “Contraction and convergence” to access links.)

Contraction and convergence

According to UN projections, world population may reach just over 9 billion by 2050. Since the world can safely emit only about 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon a year from burning fossil fuels, this would put a cap on emissions at 0.28 tonnes per person per year for 9 billion people. In 1996 the UK was emitting 2.6 tonnes per person per year, which would even then have implied an 89% reduction in the UK’s per capita emissions in order to achieve a 0.28 tonnes per capita per year target for atmospheric carbon stabilisation with a world population of 9 billion. An ultimate target of 11% of 1996 emissions would have to be achieved. By the same logic, the USA would have to reduce its emissions to 5% of its current levels.
A ‘contraction and convergence’ model of emissions reduction, therefore, needs to set fixed percentage reductions of fixed and specified total national emissions levels, not per capita targets that would allow emissions targets to be undermined or revised upwards to accommodate growth in population (rising numbers of greenhouse gas emitters). Andrew Ferguson, OPT. For more information see Carbon dioxide: the crucial limits.
In the absence of population policies, population levels are likely to be so high by the time emissions ‘convergence’ is achieved that climate change will already have caused lasting damage to Earth. OPT has calculated, on the basis of necessary carbon dioxide emissions limits alone, shared between individual countries at their 1990 population levels, as well as ecological footprinting calculations, that Earth cannot support more than 2.77 billion people at current levels of technology and consumption. See Sustainable numbers .
Put simply, the IPCC limit for a stable atmosphere is about 9 billion tonnes of carbon emissions a year, giving a sustainable level of only 1.4 tonnes per capita for today’s 6.7 billion people. This target will be impossible to meet without incorporating sustainable (lower) population levels. See Crucial limits. Improvements in technology and other factors will raise maximum sustainable populations from the levels suggested in this table, but perhaps not by much. At the post fossil-fuel stage, maximum sustainable population size is likely to be restricted by the land demands and low energy yields of green energy rather than by greenhouse gas emissions limits.

You’ll be please perhaps with the Garnaut contribution just out: -

Garnaut on C&C

“transparent, fair, pragmatic . . ”

Jul 04, 2008 02:13 PDT

Ross Garnaut’s latest Climate Report to the Australian Government is the
longest and strongest C&C endorsement ever published by serious
government source.

Not only does he comprehensively make the case for C&C as ‘pragmatic’
[noting recent converts to it], he takes on the arguments of C&C’s
critics . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Full Report at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Garnault/Climate_Change_Review_Draft_Report_040708.pdf

Full C&C section at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Garnault/Garnaut_C&C.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[sample]

“The per capita approach is generally referred to as ‘contraction and
convergence’ (Global Commons Institute 2000) and has figured in the
international debate for some time. It has been promoted by India and
has been discussed favourably in Germany and the United Kingdom (German
Advisory Council on Global Change 2003; UK Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution 2000). Recent reports have shown increasing
support for this approach internationally: see, for example, Stern
(2008) and the Commission on Growth and Development (2008).5

Under contraction and convergence, each country would start out with
emissions entitlements equal to its current emissions levels, and then
over time converge to equal per capita entitlements, while the overall
global budget contracts to accommodate the stabilisation objective. This
means that emissions entitlements per capita decrease for countries
above the global average, and increase (albeit typically at a slower
rate than unconstrained emissions growth) in countries below the global
average per capita level. Importantly, emissions entitlements would be
tradable between countries, allowing actual emissions to differ from the
contraction and convergence trajectory.

The per capita approach addresses the international equity issue
transparently: slower convergence (a later date at which per capita
emissions entitlements are equalised) favours emitters that are above
the global per capita average at the starting point, while faster
convergence gives more emissions rights to low per capita emitters. The
convergence date is the main equity lever in such a scheme.”

It’s hard enough trying to get the rest of the world to take the EU position seriously when it is increasingly apparent that the EU approach comes up short.

Anyway, I’d like to compliment you on the good work you are doing over there. More power to your arm!

The point at issue is between UNFCCC and Oliver Tickell’s [OT] K-2 - the attack is on the UNFCCC itself.

Using George Monbiot and his Guardian column to now attack C&C, Oliver Tickell [OT] uses the space to propagate his Kyoto-2 tenets.

Yet OT is wholly unwilling to defend them. It needs to be said now openly that the reason for this is simple: - he can’t, because he hasn’t really thought through what he is doing.

OT has recognised - like many people - that the UNFCCC ‘is’ in trouble [whether ‘it’ likes it or not] and ‘is not’ succeeding in organising ‘enough soon enough’ to make the difference needed and we are in danger of losing the game; - even people fairly conservative people like Ross Garnaut have started making statements to this effect.

There is really good reason to be worried and even a little frightened about this. I now get a fair amount of email from people I regard as friends and veterans from all over the place saying, “its all too late . . . the ‘katastrophe’ is becoming unavoidable . . . ”

The issue is and always has been, *power-politics*.

That means that we are all stuck now in the North/South politics of Mutually Assisted Suicide or MAS [read the US and China] that replaced the MAD of the Cold War [read the US and the former USSR].

No matter how much one points out that Parties/signatories to the UNFCCC are countries and not corporations, this K-2 lobby simply behave as though that wasn’t/isn’t relevant. Monbiot should know better; he’s been round the block a few times. Acting as though the UNFCCC must deconstruct itself and join up with what in reality [power-politics] amounts to right-wing coup in favour of extra-nationally vested interest, is worthy of the Fukuyama’s “The End of History” - i.e. OTT, also daft and-stupid.

K-2’s recipe is to offer an amount of de-institutionalized and unmediated political power to the financial and the corporate power sector, that would make even Milton Friedman, Patrick Minford, Mrs Thatcher and Ronald Reagan blush.

It is a measure to me of the naivete of Oliver Tickell and Mark Lynas [another journalist who has changed trains on this] that they appear not to realize this and now advocate - more in desperation than steady thought - this OTT agenda.

This is different from the ideological crassness attending George Monbiot on the roller-coaster he has now chosen to ride. He claims great experience and vision, which at least so far the others don’t.

In the larger frame, there’s nothing to deal with here. K-2 etc won’t see the light of dawn, let alone the day. But right-wingers around the place have already started using the ‘woo-hoo; Monbiot’s turned turtle’ argument to attack C&C consensus where it exists e.g. NZ.

Mainstream politicians here in the UK, many of who now actively support and argue C&C in parliament, say cyncically that Monbiot’s abandoning C&C will raise support for it; well maybe, maybe not.

However, just as the UK Green Party was forced to face, losers don’t need to win, they just need to make sure nobody else does either.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

K-2’s Assumptions: -

1. It is possible to aggregate oil coal and gas into a homogenous carbon unit resolving all factors of carbon-intensity, and production off-set differentials: [technically difficult - politically improbable].

2, This can be done consistent with 350 ppmv atmospheric CO2:

Note: -

[a] IPCC’s 1994 modelling for 350 ppmv was zero emissions globally by 2050 [path-integral 250/300 GTC] with indefinitely negative emissions thereafter. This scenario was ‘removed for this reason’ by IPCC from 1995 onwards [SAR];

[b] IPCC’s 2006/7 modelling in AR-4 is, because of sink-failure and the ‘coupled modelling’ of this path integral, is estimated to give nearer a 450ppmv [than a 350 ppmv] outcome . . . . note [!] . . .

[c] To achieve ‘350′, now requires something like zero fossil fuel production/consumption [path integral ~ 150 GTC] globally by ~2020/30 and negative emission thereafter . . . . . . note [!!] . . . .

{In other words, ‘wall-to-wall nonsense’ - we’ll be fortunate indeed to keep below 450 . . . ].

Back to K-2’s Assumptions: -

3. Political will is available to resolve all tensions between the oil, coal and gas sectors and within sectors - i.e. an aggresive cartel of producers, highly differentiated by status, geographical locale and political patronage; [experience tells me this has ~/zero probability]

4. All these issues can however, be resolved subordinate to points one and two above, *without recourse to an international C&C framework* and effectively therefore this requires the deconstruction of the UNFCCC process itself. [This will have *a lot of people* fuming].

5. Drastically cutting through all known supplies of conventional crude oil and gas, never mind the ‘exotics’, etc . . . . [refer the production/consumption arithmetic of 350/450/550 - ‘rising risks’ posted at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Poster_Oil_Coal_Gas_350_450_550.pdf

unbracket . . . . to put it politely, these are K-2’s meta-heroic assumptions . . . . .

Aubrey

Aubrey

What did you think of George Monbiot’s article in The Guardian on Tuesday, particularly these comments?

Until recently I supported an alternative system called contraction and convergence. Every country, this system proposes, should end up with the same quota of carbon dioxide per person. The richest countries must produce much less than they do today; the poorest ones could pollute more. Another proposal flows logically from this one: carbon rationing. Having been assigned its carbon quota, each nation would divide up part of it equally among its citizens, who could use it to buy energy or trade it among themselves. These proposals have the merit of capping global pollution, of being fair, progressive and easy to understand and of encouraging us to think about our use of energy.

But, after reading the proofs of a book by the independent thinker Oliver Tickell, to be published next month, I have changed my view. In Kyoto2: How to Manage the Global Greenhouse, Tickell slaughters my favourite ideas…

Refer to Monbiot’s article: This economic panic is pushing the planet right back down the agenda http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

You’ll need to register to access the report (it’s free)

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-McKibbin-protocol-G74NT?OpenDocument

The only trouble with the Hansen figure is that its one thing to up the ante on concentration [350 not 450 ppmv etc] its another to attach the emissions budgetting. The 350 campaigners [all strength to them] don’t want to do that because [as I was told] ‘it complicates things and people won’t understand . . . !’

Here’s a piece of modelling showing the global emissions contraction rates required now just to achieve 450 ppmv - see IPCC AR4 WG1 Cahpter 10 ‘coupled-models’. Because of sink failure, what was thought 15 years ago to give a 350 ish outcome now looks more like a 450 outcome . . . .
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe

Here’s yet another letter to the Guardian [so far unpublished] trying to get this point across: -

In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined its objective as halting the rise of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas below the level that causes dangerous rates of climate change.

This is no small-ask as the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations is like a tap to a bath: - to stop the bath overflowing, you have to turn the tap right off - it means that emissions must fall to zero globally to achieve the UNFCCC objective.

This was in response to the first IPCC report [1990]. The science group of IPCC has been informing the world for twenty years that climate change is a huge policy problem and for this reason. Yet its policy group has become a show-case for warring economists. The trap is that rising GDP is closely indexed to the rising emissions [tap] that are causing concentrations [bath level] to rise.

During this period alone, CO2 concentrations rose from 353 to 386 parts per million [ppm], a total of 40% above pre-industrial levels. Yet while the problem became more and more acute, economists became vaguer and more erratic as to how to meet this challenge. Nicholas Stern, Tony Blair’s ‘Climate-Group’ and others now argue for a global climate deal that allows for a further rise of around 100 ppm in CO2 concentrations, while scientist James Hansen has just launched a campaign to have them fall back to 350 ppm.

To avoid dangerous rates of climate change, Stern et al see global emission merely halve by 2050, while Hansen et al require them go to zero asap – avoiding the extra odd trillion tonnes of CO2 emissions, saying the sooner the better.

This is a contest between too much too soon and too little too late. Either way a full-term emissions contraction and convergence event is required. Considering Dr Pachauri knows and supports this, his article is rather vague.

Aubrey Meyer
GCI

Elizabeth, you’ve stirred this one to life again with some unexpected results.

Blair, Aubrey, Peter, interesting comments. Aubrey at 46, I think Hansen, whose recent work I summarised in this post is better at analysing the problem than suggesting practical actions to mitigate it. I think that his target of 300-350ppm is far better than the higher one in Pillar One because it avoids committing us to an unacceptable chance of the worst outcomes in relation to sea level rise and other effects. Nevertheless, it still puts us in line for some distinct unpleasantness as I attempted to show in this post on sea level change.

One of my criticisms of the Blair report (I’ll call it that for convenience) is that there is some inconsistency and confusion in the facts given on page 16 about temperature and sea level change.

Hansen and others tell us repeatedly that during the Eemian interglacial when the temperature was 1-2C higher than now (”now” for Hansen is 2000 or 0.7C above preindustrial) sea levels were 4-6m higher. Blair has taken the temps down a bit, but added considerably to the sea level rise at 5-13 meters.

Similarly the statement that when the world was 3 to 4C higher sea levels were 25 meters higher. Hansen said 2-3C above now, which should read 2.7 to 3.7C above preindustrial.

This might seem like nit picking, but Blair follows with the statement that 4C warmer (than what? - presumably preindustrial, but it’s not stated) is higher than it’s been for 65 million years. This seems wrong, and is definitely wrong in relation to the PETM spike of 55mya. The implication is that with 4C the world will be ice free. So somehow we get from 25 meters of sea level rise to 75 meters in the space of nothing.

I think it’s valid and logical to link CO2 levels with temperature rise and sea level rise, at least going back 3 million years when the continents were in virtually the same place, the ocean basins were the very close to the same shape and the ocean circulation patterns should have been similar.

But I’m not a scientist so probably I’ve missed something obvious. Anyway I’ve set down the relationships that Hansen has identified as follows from the above-linked post on sea level rise, referenced to preindustrial temperatures:

180ppm give a temperature of -5C and a sea level of -120m

280ppm give a temperature of 0C and a sea level of 0m

280-300ppm give a temperature of 1.7 to 2.7C and a sea level of 4-6m

380 (360-400)ppm give a temperature of 2.7 to 3.7C and a sea level of 15 to 35m

425 (350-500)ppm give a temperature of 5.7C and a sea level of 75m

The last is probably a bit wobbly as the planet’s surface was configured a bit differently 35-40mya.

I reckon, Stern, Blair and you guys should be telling us why there’s no need to worry, and it’s perfectly OK for the CO2 levels to be over 300ppm. Especially since Hansen now reckons that climate sensitivity with the ice sheets in play is 6C rather than 3c, AND the momentum commitment is 2C rather than about 0.5C. Please tell us where he’s wrong!

Furthermore I don’t think the Blair position pays sufficient regard to ocean acidity or cactussed carbon sinks. But that’s another story.

If you are worried about a perverse incentive to increase population then use the population levels from a fixed year (e.g. 2008) to calculate the population when calculating “per-capita”.

According to the paper:

Criticisms of a per capita allocation plan are that it is not politically realistic, as it implies transfers of resources from current high to low emitters, and that it would encourage population growth. The latter concern can be addressed by choosing a fixed base-year population or by determining a population baseline incorporating reasonable declines in population growth rates (1, 6). As to the first objection, agreements sustaining unequal emissions levels are not realistic either, because developing countries are unlikely to accept permanent restrictions on per capita emissions levels lower than those of industrialized nations. Further, institutionalizing inequity is a poor basis of cooperation. Equal per capita emissions represent a compromise limiting the liability of the industrialized nations for their cumulative emissions, without permanently accepting existing inequalities (9). A phase-in period would be needed in which the diverse situations and emission levels of different countries are recognized (10).

In fact the Report came from the ‘Climate Group’ who in turn based their section on ‘International Agreements’ on a recent report from Nicholas Stern, who in turn based his advice on GCI’s Contraction and Convergence proposals.

Initially unwilling to, Nicholas Stern has finally acknowledged this: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/correspondence/CUP_McBeth_Reply_Final_250608.pdf
http://www.gci.org.uk/Stern_U_Turn.pdf

Here’s how we are using this in the context of the UK parliamentary debate at this time: -

Challen - the pull of Samson Aubrey Meyer
Jun 28, 2008 01:12 PDT

This C&C letter appeared in Saturday’s Guardian [28 06 08] in response to the story on Thursday [26 06 08] about Nicholas Stern and “its now 2% of GDP needed”: -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/26/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange

Guardian Letters

“Stern joins UNDP’s “emerging consensus” of halving global emissions by
2050, also stressing the “pragmatism” of the equalisation of per capita
emissions globally by then. This is the global principle of contraction
and convergence.

It is now widely supported and with early day motion 1795, many of our
MPs are urging the government to support the principle openly. They
point out that contraction and convergence was clearly advocated to
government in the royal commission on environmental pollution report on
which the UK climate bill is based.

Doubling the spend of GDP to achieve this is neither here nor there. As
the costs of failure are without limit, the only cost-benefit ratio
relevant to this whole process results from understanding that we have
to solve the problem of climate change faster than we are causing it.”

Aubrey Meyer
London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/28/renewableenergy

The Guardian cut the final comment which said, “ . . . and this may well
be faster than the rate suggested by Sir Nicholas.” In other words we
must double the rate of C&C so doubling the spend is less irrelevant.

This is germane as two positions emerge either side of C&C: -

SAMSON AND THE PILLARS

1. – PILLAR ONE

Tony Blair with the Climate Group, UNDP, Nicholas Stern and many others
now argue Pillar One – i.e. ‘500 ppmv’ or global emissions halved by
2050 with Developed Countries cutting by 80%. This is where Stern now
says the equalization of per capita by then is ‘pragmatic’.

In a messy way, it is C&C but the rates are too slow to avoid dangerous rates
climate change.

The Climate Group Report, which says [p 19]: -
http://gci.org.uk/climategroup/BTCDJune08Report.pdf

“Another way to think about this is that in 2005 emissions were about 8
tonnes per person per year. Advanced economies ranged from 10 tonnes per
person for Japan and the EU, to 23 for Canada (Exhibit 5). Developing
countries range from very small amounts for the poorest countries to
under 2 tonnes per person for India and 6 for China. Assuming the
emissions cuts above and world population growth to 9 billion people,
such a scenario implies a world average of approximately 2 tonnes per
person by 2050. [Reference Stern and quoting the UNDP graphics that UNDP
call C&C] . . .

The DAVOS leaders’ statement in the name of “clear and succinct honesty”
[p8] http://www.weforum.org/documents/initiatives/CEOStatement.pdf

. . . and uses another of Stern’s statements that says: -

“Current annual global emission flows are around 40-45 Gigatonnes of CO2
equivalent (GtC02-eq). About 45% of current global emissions come from
developing countries and this is set to grow. A 50% reduction in global
emissions by 2050 equates to an aggregate annual flow of around
22GtC02-eq. As there will be around 9 billion people in 2050, this
implies per capita emissions per year of about 2-2.5 tonnes CO2-eq.
Currently, US emissions are more than 20 tonnes of CO2-eq per person per
year, Europe and Japan 10-15 tonnes, China 5 or more tonnes, India
around 1.5 and most of Africa much less than 1 tonne CO2- eq per person
per year. The consequence is that rich countries will have to take the
lead and demonstrate strong cuts. Since around 8 billion people will be
in currently developing countries, those countries will also have to be
in the range of 2-2.5 tonnes CO2-eq by 2050, otherwise the world average
for the total would be unachievable. The size of their economies will,
we hope, grow strongly. This means that emissions per unit of output
will have to fall very strongly in all countries by 2050 if we are to
avoid dangerous climate change.”
http://www.gci.org.uk/Stern_U_Turn.pdf

2. – PILLAR TWO

James Hansen, 350, K2 et al who variously argue the Pillar 2 position –
i.e. ‘350 ppmv’, which it can be argued will be fast enough to avoid
dangerous rates of climate change. However, these positions avoid C&C
reasoning as they say all you need to do is to tax, or auction, or
hand-out permits equal to the international upstream fossil fuel
production [numbers for oil coal and gas and/or institutional methods
for administering this not specified] and variously hand-out, pay out or
pay back the ‘dividend’ to individuals or causes unspecified.

C&S say they are a ‘special case’ of C&C which ‘insists’ that the
hand-out of the fossil fuel production permits and the new Energy-Backed
Currency Units to match, must be equal per capita globally immediately.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The MP Colin Challen strategy pulls to the middle ground between these
pillars, simply calling for C&C at rates that are meaningful.

Perhaps he’s in the position of Sampson – he must pull these pillars
into the middle as an international C&C agreement at rates which solve
the problem of causing dangerous rates of climate change faster than we
are creating it.

Further to that, all MPs have received a personal written invitation
from GCI/APPGCC to support EDM 1795 calling on the Government to join
with the support for C&C. The EDM is quoted in the document and is at
this link: - http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/MPs_C&C.pdf

Contraction & Convergence [C&C] has been described recently by the Head
of the United Nations Development Programme [UNDP] as the ‘emerging
position’. He was recently joined in this by Sir Nicholas Stern who has
described the need for C&C as ‘pragmatic’. Please will you consider
seriously supporting Colin Challen’s EDM [1795] welcoming the newly
stated support of President Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel for C&C.

Please write you MP and ask them to support EDM 1795.