In Bonn for the last two weeks 4,600 people from 183 countries representing governments, business and interest groups met in Bonn to discuss the draft text for the December climate change meeting in Copenhagen which we looked at in May. According to the official press release steady progress was made:
“A big achievement of this meeting is that governments have made it clearer what they want to see in the Copenhagen agreed outcome,” said Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change. “In my view, an ambitious and effective agreed outcome in Copenhagen is in sight – an outcome that provides a strong and definitive answer to the alarm raised by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
But a news item from the official site was headed Bonn talks yielded little consensus.
According to the French delegate Brice Lalonde:
“Everybody knows that global emissions have to be halved by 2050 (compared with 1990 levels), which implies that industrialized countries reduce theirs by 80 percent. And everyone knows that emissions by developing countries have to start falling by 2025 at the latest,” Lalonde said.
“But nobody’s signing up.”
It seems that there is considerable agreement on the 2050 goals, but the developing countries are not signing up to quantitative targets. One reason is the lack of ambition on the part of industrialised countries on 2020 targets. According to Deutsche Welle UN climate chief Yvo de Boer “…there is no question that the industrialized countries must raise their sights higher in terms of midterm emission cuts, and yes, time is short, but we still have enough time.” He identifies four points that the UN will have to agree on in Copenhagen:
“Ambitious emission reductions targets from industrialized countries; efforts by developing countries to limit the growth of their emissions; stable, significant predictable finance for adaptation and mitigation; and an equitable government structure.”
Developing countries are particularly critical that they are expected to come up with mitigation and adaptation programs when they don’t know the quantum of aid forthcoming.
While China and the rest are still insisting on a 40% CO2 emissions cut for the rich countries by 2020, it looks as though the US may have blinked on quantifiable targets for developing countries. But it seems likely that the US still will insist on China adopting a measurable and accountable path towards a cleaner economy against the ‘business as usual’ trajectory. See for example the interview by Der Spiegel with US deputy climate change envoy Jonathan Pershing. According to Pershing:
Major economies with large total emissions like China should take additional steps, including a quantitative and quantifiable set of actions with a legal requirement to implement those actions.
The US, according to Pershing, wants differentiated but identifiable programs for the various developing countries, at least the major emitters amongst them, and wants some countries such as South Korea moved into the industrialised category.
The Bonn meeting was the second of five such leading up to Copenhagen. That’s actually another 6 weeks of solid negotiations with all parties involved, plus other meetings. The US is experienced in playing the long game in trade negotiations, so nothing is final until it’s over. As one negotiator said, “The Big Bang comes at the end.”
Meanwhile the US target for 2020, watered down from 20% to 17% of 2005 levels, has been roundly criticised. Whether they’ll get away with this is doubtful. But if they increase their 2020 targets you can bet there will be a contra deal involving the developing countries.
Meanwhile back in Oz, Laura Tingle had an interesting article in last Friday’s AFR. She sees the Barnaby-led National position as staying put, but sees the Liberals splitting with their coalition partners to join Labor in passing the CPRS after Copenhagen. Thus the double dissolution will be avoided, Labor’s attempt to paint the Liberals a climate change sceptics will fail and the election can be fought principally on the economy.
It will be interesting if the industrialised countries eventually have to go for more than 25% by 2050. Japan has incurred the wrath of green groups by announcing a target of 15% below 2005 levels. Australia could argue that we were granted an extra 8% at Kyoto and if you look at it in per capita terms as a reduction from that higher level our target exceeds 40%. I’m not sure how much but I think you’d get little change out of 45%.
That may be seen as making a silk purse out of a sows ear, but there is a line of reasoning behind it. And it I’m not wrong it roughly represents the reality of what we would have to achieve from present levels.
To be honest, the CPRS and the whole Copenhagen saga seem strangely unreal in light of the kind of urgency that has been warranted by the science for a couple of years now. I feel with Paul Gilding that Copenhagen and the CPRS are just a training exercise for when the real game begins.
Gilding outlined his ideas on how the world would need to, and would, change in an excellent talk on Background Briefing on Sunday. A transcripts should be up in a couple of days time.
Perhaps we should be coming to terms with the 5 degree C temperature rise map.
BilB, indeed. Gilding thinks we are not going to get the message as a species until the effects become very obvious to all, which by definition is at least 30 years too late. But Gilding is optimistic that we’ll make it, sans the Great Barrier reef a large slab of the Amazon and some other features of the planet.
Lovelock, OTOH, always a cheerful chap, thinks we should be adapting to a climate situation where we will be living only near the poles, if his latest book, which I haven’t resad, be any guide. In other words, he thinks we’ve flipped but yet don’t know it.
Sheesh those developed targets you’ve quoted there are almost breath-takingly miserly, even by my cynical standards. Sigh. 5 degrees it is.
So real action gets delayed again, and we’re supposed to relax? If anything of substance comes out of Copenhagen, I’d be astonished. Lets face it people, the only hope we have now is that the denialists are right.
Where can I sign up for Lovelock’s polar refuge?
“Where can I sign up for Lovelock’s polar refuge?”
Dear Mr Sink,
We acknowledge receipt of your application for limited tenure on WestCorps PolarStar human container class C. As you are aware, your application comes under the Global Terror and Protect Act(ammended)2011, and as such we are unable to process your application until sufficient funds have been received from your government and your name tagged by the relevant authority in your state as ‘required’.
We thank you for your interest in PolarStar, and hope that we can be of assistance in the future.
Yours etc
“Perhaps we should be coming to terms with the 5 degree C temperature rise map.”
What we should be expecting is geoengineering. Aerosols for palliative short-term cooling, and air capture for actually reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The world may yet adopt an all-natural climate strategy, but given the existence of the aerosol option right now, there is simply no prospect of humanity sitting still for a century while temperatures rise that far. (Unless we actually decide that the Carboniferous was a better place to be than the Holocene.)
It was nauseating to see Turnbull and the coalition in furious bipartisan agreement with the government over the importance of Australia’s World Cup bid in 2018. FFS. What wonderful priorities this country has.
Thanks adrian for that little act of imagination. Gave me a kind of grimmish giggle….
I was fascinated to see Dr. Graeme Pearman talk about how he and other climate scientists realised that no matter now compelling their argument, there’d be other human reasons that would prevent people from accepting it or, indeed, taking action based on it.
It reminded me that simply arguing the case is not always going to do the job. Works of art, comedy, song are all valid ways to help people shift their thinking.
I’m more concerned about the corrupt, the greedy, the avaricious, the cynical manipulators, The phsycopathic executives,…and the politicians, and how they are all “coping” with this. That is the bunch who take advantage of any situation for their own prosperitive purposes to the cost of all others/else. The are the people who cause
“the anxious to deny; the sad to avoid; the hopeless to become resigned; the frustrated, to be cynical; the depressed, to be sceptical; the angry, to become just fed up”
Brian, I held the latest Lovelock book in my hand in a bookshop on the weekend and decided not to buy it. Not because I don’t think it’ll be worth reading, or that I think he’s probably even wrong. I just wasn’t quite ready to face a bleaker read than Revenge of Gaia – though I’m sure the day’ll come.
Aussie, there’s a problem with Lovelock – the guy isn’t stupid. When the Revenge of Gaia came out in 2006, people thought him extreme and alarmist. Now it’s pretty much run of the mill. I’m not sure I want to read his latest just yet either.
I like what Graeme Pearman said also. Reason often acts to rationalise an emotionally based position, which is why people often change their minds about major positions they hold only after a personal experience that shakes them up.
And yes, mitchell @ 6, we’ll get into the geoengineering fast when the problem hits home. Gilding thinks we are smart enough to dig ourselves out of trouble once we get the message, but it’s going to be a rough ride. And the Holocene won’t be quite as we once knew it.
Aussie Oskar @ 10: Just embrace the dark side. Once you accept that all hope is lost you’ll feel a lot better about things.
Gee thanks Mr. Sink. (can we call you that from now on?)
Brian@11,
I don’t know whether I’d call Lovelock stupid, as such, but from my reading of his books, he seems so in love with his own Gaia theories, that he prejudges many issues. He views all issues to do with nuclear energy benignly, as if they are easily solvable, and then gets all funny about some renewable technologies, without having seemed to examine them in detail.
Give me HuggyBunny anyday. At least he seems to know what he is talking about when it comes to this stuff. I am sure Lovelock talks to many key people around the world, but does he actually listen to what anyone else says?
I want to like what he writes, but sometimes the gaps in logic or analysis seem just breathtaking. I think he understands the ecosystem side of things, but as for possible solutions… I really do not think so.
China and India aren’t going to do anyhting to limit their development. Why should we cripple our international competitiveness for no measurable benefit?
Hannah is quite a persistent puppy.
Yaz @ 14, I reckon I’d agree with that. Lovelock’s idea of putting floating pipes in the ocean to bring up cool water, I think through wave action, seemed a stretch. Also manufacturing food from the component chemicals sounds like science fiction. But on his understanding of the whole system you can’t rely on him being wrong.
“…Also manufacturing food from the component chemicals sounds like science fiction.”
And you can bet it will be done in countries where you know you will be completely comfortable with the quality control! Flavoured agar for everyone.
Why not have a pork flavoured slice of tissue culture in between those wheat flavour infused gelatin sheets? Yummy.
I think it was Mercurious who stated in a wish list( some weeks ago) that he wanted food produced in sustainable ways – ways that didn’t have an impact on the environment. I might be confusing his exact desires slightly but I can see a mentality emerging that accepts totally man made , manufactured foods from chemical plants set in managed nature reserves. We will all eat unnatural food while surrounded by largely untouched natural settings.
There are limitations to techniques like permaculture – while an attractive approach on a small area it isn’t a production method which generates a significant surplus which can be used to feed urban populations. It is currently the trend that populations are moving into urban areas not the reverse especially in asia.
Fish flavoured food stick anyone?
murph, if what you say has substance it just goes to show that you underestimare the old guy at your peril. In using the term “science fiction” I was a ware that SF often heralds actual developments well in advance of when they occur.
This also relates to the other post I’ve just put up.
Brian – I’m sorry I tried reading it and had to stop after the first para. Not your fault. It’s just that such farnarkling really makes your heart sink and I’d rather not know today.