Scotland recently passed what was billed as the world’s “most ambitious” climate bill. As with the UK they have adopted an 80% emissions reduction target for 2050 but also include international shipping and aviation, which may well be a first.
For 2020 they have adopted a target of a 42% reduction from 1990 levels, compared with Westminster’s 34%.
Apparently Scotland’s bill was the result of a bidding war between the major political parties. Whether the action is commensurate remains to be seen.
In terms of track record Sweden may well lay claim to leadership. The Swedish prime minister in taking over the rotating EU presidency from the denier from the Czech Republic said:
Sweden had cut emissions by 10 percent since 1990 but still managed to increase economic growth by about 50 percent in that time, helped by a carbon tax for industry which puts about 20 euro cents on the price of a litre of petrol.
That’s interesting, a simple carbon tax.
There is no doubt at all, however, that we all stand a better chance with Sweden at the EU helm running into Copenhagen rather than the Czech Republic.
We’ll need all the help we can get.
According to Bloomberg the G8 countries have been looked at and largely found wanting. Canada and Russia are plain dreadful, probably going backwards. Japan is going nowhere.
The US gets plaudits for a climate bill not yet passed by Congress and in truth lacking in ambition in terms of 2020. !7% down from 2005 I think is about 4% down from 1990 (please correct if appropriate) which is about as pathetic as Australia. Still if they actually manage to turn the graph downwards something important will have been achieved.
Germany just edges out the UK, possibly still dining out on the collapse of dirty industry in East Germany, and possibly because the report was authored by the German insurer Allianz.
The report itself makes interesting use of the internet. Just click on the “highlights” button and follow the various pathways.
There’s no danger of emissions peaking any time soon.
An interesting possibility for a decisive change comes from yet another report on climate change, this time a joint report by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Pascal Lamy, a very clever trade negotiator and Director of the WTO, tells us how trade can help. He takes up the “food miles” chestnut, pointing out how efficient sea transport is, and points to the $165 billion worth of climate adaptation and mitigation technologies traded in recent years which are on the negotiating table in the currently stalled Doha Round.
But his main point is that there are provisions in the WTO arrangements already that can help and a further reshaping of trade arrangements must await an agreement between the major polluters, hopefully in Copenhagen.
Here’s the press release whence you can download the report. There were two figures that I found of particular interest. The first shows the projected emissions of the main economic blocks:
Clearly BRIC is where the action is. The EU, seen here as flat-lining, is the only major block putting in a half-decent effort. This graph shows clearly how little that actually matters and how nothing much is going to change until the major developing country polluters come up with a plan to peak emissions and turn them downwards.
The second shows the projected changes in agricultural productivity:
It would be interesting indeed to find out what assumptions have gone into the making of that map. The greening of California, Southern Europe, all of China and the south-east segment of Australia is a surprise. It’s based on 2080 estimates by Cline, W. R. (2007), Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country, Petersen Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC.
I suspect it assumes less warming than is currently anticipated and hence overestimates productivity gains from increased CO2. I suspect it underestimates the adverse effect on fresh water availability for agriculture in California, China and Australia.
There is no evidence that sea level rise has been taken into account.
There is more discussion of this report at Quiggin’s and yesterday he had an opinion piece in the AFR on the subject.
Quiggin sees great significance in the capacity, which already exists under WTO rules, of states imposing tariffs on other countries which do not conform to environmental standards. So he sees the central factor as an agreement between China, the USA and the EU. If they decided to exact tariffs from countries which did not do the right thing in limiting emissions, then it would be economic suicide for any country to hold out.
On trade matters the EU and the US have a track record of being completely, and I mean completely, bloody-minded in making and using the rules to protect their own industries against overseas competition. China here is the key. I see them as being similarly bloody-minded in playing the the game to their national advantage. In insisting that the developed countries reduce emissions by 40% by 2020, that they provide direct assistance to the developing countries including themselves at the rate of 1% of GDP pa and that the rich countries engage in wholesale technology transfer, while talking the talk but accepting no formal limitations on their own emissions, the Chinese are seeking a giant leap forward in competitive economic positioning.
They claim of course that historiclly we made the mess so we should clean it up while they have the right to make a similar mess to get on.
The West could even out the moral playing field by adopting a program to take 200gt of CO2 out of the atmosphere. A massive biochar program is one possibility. But then we should give that priority while our agricultural productivity holds up rather than indulge ourselves in the dubious practice of growing biofuels.
Update: I’ve uploaded here a couple of images that show a very different future compared to the image of agricultural productivity above. First from Chapter 10 of the IPPC AR4 WG1 report, 2007:
This refers to the period 2080 to 2099 compared to 1980 to 1999 according to the IPCC A1B scenario.
The second comes from an article in the New Scientist on a 4C world:
Unfortunately the printing doesn’t come out too well, but the brown and yellow areas are deemed uninhabitable and the food growing zones are light green.
Like you, I’m surprised at these estimates. I did some projected impacts for the Murray-Darling Basin and they are dire. At a rough guess, the map would be about what you would get for 3 degrees of warming, including CO2 fertilisation and without paying much attention to water.
“China here is the key. I see them as being similarly bloody-minded in playing the the game to their national advantage.”…….”They claim of course that historiclly we made the mess so we should clean it up while they have the right to make a similar mess to get on”
.
It’s not just a historical claim. The average Chinese citizen still contributes far less CO2 than the average Western citizen. So it seems to me that it is not bloody minded at all. They are playing the game so they are not at a national disadvantage. Until Western nations understand this, of course no-one is going to get anywhere, since to the average Chinese citizen it sounds like “do what we say, not what we do”. Once people in the West start giving up on coal, cars, clothes dryers, urban sprawl, international flight etc. then these sorts of China statements might become more reasonable.
Given the graph of growth in emmissions by the BRIC economies – explain to me again why Australia, producing less than 2% of global emmissions, should commit economic vandalism by introducing any sort of GHG taxation or regulation system.
How’s that Kyoto agreement going?
More to the point, how is the Doha round of trade talks going?
Gooses.
That map has to be wrong. Spain is going to increase in temp by 6 to 8 degrees. They’re already short of water. Can’t happen. Most of the shanghai polygon will be under water!
I thought that far north Australia wasn’t supposed to do too badly however…
Someone whose opinion I respect, Peter Christoff, said that the UK and germany were teh only two advanced countries that were really meaningfully doing anything to reduce emissions.
Razor, by your reasoning, if your kids are swinging off the light fittings like monkeys you should just join in – no such thing as setting an example, then?
And if you must resort to personal abuse, the plural of goose is geese.
Helen don’t worry, Razor just dropped by, helpful as always, to Tell Us How It Is. So, now that you’ve Been Told, girlie, just be quiet, OK?
Hi Helen,
Kids swinging off light fittings is not generally acceptable behaviour. Given the BRIC economies have about 1/3 or more of Global Population who desperately want to improve their living standards, then relying on cheap carbon based energy is hardly unusual behaviour. Find a better example. Smoking perhaps.
As indicated by this quote from the Indians -
“India will not accept any emission-reduction target – period,” [Environment Minister Jairam] Ramesh said. “This is a non-negotiable stand.”
The Chinese have said they wont be signing anything at China – then I say there is about four fifths of bugger all chance of getting any sort of agreement out of Copenhagen that is any more useful than Kyoto, what ever you think of the science. Therefore the best course of action is to ensure maximum economic growth in order to be able to pay for climate change forced things.
I know geese is the plural of goose – I just liked the sound of gooses. Perhaps I should have used the collective noun – smack.
I note that you fail to address the failures of Kyoto and Doha – which point to the highly likely failure of Copenhagen.
Regards
Razor,
By your logic any country with an emissions problem simply has to divide itself into 2 separate sovereign states thereby reducing its per country emissions by half (half for each new state), and consequently their national environmental responsibility is proportionally reduced.
That will certainly solve the problem of global warming problem. According to Razor.
I’d be very careful about considering going down the route of imposing tariffs on developing countries that don’t do enough to constrain their greenhouse gas emissions.
China has categorically stated that they are opposed to such measures, as has India. Even though there is some scope under WTO rules for environment related measures, it isn’t at all clear that actions regarding greenhouse abatement would be ruled to be WTO compliant. For a start, it gets into very tricky territory of determining the degree and timing of appropriate abatement for developing countries. This is something best thrashed out in international negotiations, not WTO legal hearings.
Trying to impose such tariffs unilaterally could also quickly see China and other developing countries imposing retaliatory tariffs on western exports and could even lead to a breakdown of the multilateral trade regime. This would have dire economic consequences and not leave us any closer to the environmental outcome we want to see.
If western countries want to slow down the growth rate of developiong country emissions, they have to realise that a cooperative approach will be necessary, and that there will be a need for very large technological and financial transfers to compensate them for the costs.
Indeed LO, and also will, I believe, need to lead by example.
I just hope Angela Merkel gives Kevin Rudd an object lesson in really combatting climate change when the hopefully carbon offsets RAAF prime ministerial jet reaches Germany next week. Hopefully Chancellor Angela has boned up on Dietrich Bonhoffer sufficiently to remind the Ruddster of where his conscience should lead him. I note a lot of hope in this post.
For anyone that might be interested there’s a speech by Ian Plimer from The Sydney Institute on at around 8:30am this Sunday morning on A-PAC. Not sure when it was done or if it’s been on before just saw it in the EPG.
I’ll try to come back to this tonight, but I don’t see rich countries ever imposing tariffs on poor countries on this one. A major part of the reluctance of India is that they, and the other developing countries, have been serially dudded in trade negotiations by having to accept rich country promises which are never delivered.
Tariffs could have a role, however, in concentrating the mind of countries like Canada and Japan, and possibly Australia if we don’t get our act together.
Russia is a bit of a rogue state, partly because they could be one of the few climate change winners. They are also a fossil fuel exporter and are not part of the WTO. With EU dependence on their gas, they have significant leverage.
But if China and the US come to an accommodation that is accepted by the EU and the Least Developed countries, or the G77 trade block of the same, then we will get progress.
There are two paths that are not open to us, meaning the world. One is that we carry on regardless as suggested by Razor with business as usual, improving our wealth so that we can adapt to whatever the climate throws up.
The overwhelming likelihood on the most recent science is that the economy will come to serious grief some decades down the track making this approach a nonsense. In terms of risk management it’s crazy.
The other is that the developing countries can’t pollute their way to prosperity, just as the rich countries did. Same outcome. The overwhelming odds are that it just can’t happen.
There is a fair chance that the Chinese know this. It’s just that they have shown already that those in power will accept standards of pollution and adverse environmental outcomes that are unacceptable to anyone with a concern for the future of the planet.
“The other is that the developing countries can’t pollute their way to prosperity, just as the rich countries did.”
I think you are confusing “did” with “do”, since what it means is that poor people get to stay poor and rich people get to stay rich, and rich people still get to belch out as much pollution as they did in 1990 (plus 10% for recalictrants that are lucky enough to live in certain geographical regions, and probably even moreso in reality).
My bet is that poor people will quite happily bet against your suggestion by polluting more (but still less than rich people) their way to prosperity (unless really cheap non-polluting energy technology gets going sooner rather than later). For them, it’s a damned if you don’t (stay poor and suffer the consequences) and possibly damned if you do argument (environment gets destroyed too much), so they may as well take the risk and hope the environment doesn’t get stuffed up too much. Thus the Chinese strategy makes complete sense to the CHinese (it’s the best bet on offer to them), and if there are outcomes like Australia becomes 99% desert then Australians can hardly complain, since they’re just as responsible for it as everyone else (indeed, moreso, if you consider individual contributions).
Brian, I’m not sure that you understand how the WTO works. It would almost certainly be illegal for say Europe to slap a unilateral tariff on Australian exports for climate change related reasons. The US certainly will not do it because we have an FTA with them, while the Canadians have NAFTA. It is worth pointing out also that India has significantly higher tariff levels and overall protection for both its agricultural and manufacturing sector than the US, Europe, Japan and Australia. India is actually one of the main culprits (along with the US) for the current DOHA round breaking down, in that they wanted rich countries to further liberalise their agricultural sectors without giving up much of importance in return. Europe also has its Everything But Arms initiative, which gives duty free access to European markets for LDC countries, without those countries having to give similar access themselves. So things are a bit more complicated on the trade front than you are making out.
Also, I don’t know what you mean about Australia getting its act together. Relative to 1990 levels, our conditional target is more aggressive than the target the US is currently proposing – and that hasn’t even made its way through the US senate yet. Quite separate from the trade argument our strategic relationship with the US makes it almost impossible to believe that the US would form some sort of climate alliance with Europe to threaten some of its most important allies!
Also, I have to take you up on the economy coming to grief. Projections of the impact of climate change on the economy are made relative to the expected baseline level of GDP at some point in the horizon. So, for example, if one estimated that the impact would amount to 20% of GDP in 2100, that would be relative to baseline in 2100. That baseline level would be more than double what it is now, so even a 20% reduction would leave us considerably better off than today. Note also, that the 20% doesn’t come all in one hit (GDP doesn’t collapse by 20% in one year) it is an incremental effect – we basically grow more slowly than we otherwise would. I’m not saying that the costs of action are greater than the costs of action – just pointing out how the economic impacts are supposed to be interpreted. Of course, if one believes that climate change will be associated with more regular “shocks”, then those will have large impacts in single years – but that is a different issue again.
LO @ 16, the WTO is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The dirty little secret that most of us won’t admit to is that economic growth (and trade) has only been possible because of fossil fuels. The oil (or at least the economically exploitable bits) is running out, and we can’t continue to use coal if we want life as we know it to continue.
If we want to survive at all, it’s back to renewable energy and sailing ships.
To my mind, a major cause of the GFC was the combined effect of the large chinese trade surplus and the related large US trade deficit. The US economy would would benefit enormously if there was an excuse to cut back imports from China.
If the US and EU do make real progress on emissions reduction they have enough combined economic/trade muscle to apply serious pressure.
There are quite a few comments to respond to. I’ll do my best over the next few days.
First the WTO and possible tariffs. LO @ 16, a few years ago I used to read a lot about trade, but not the black letter legalistic stuff. Have you had a look at this thread at Quiggin’s place? In the first comment HC says:
Free traders ideologically usually say we should accept the world as it is on matters relating to the environment and labour conditions. I think Lamy’s piece is an indication of an acceptance that global warming is everyone’s business and as such is to be welcomed. He also stressed that the WTO should take account of the outcomes of Copenhagen. If so there may be more explicit measures in the future.
As to HC’s comment about existing provisions, there needs to be a reason why a country would take action. Most often countries respond to the complaints of peak industry groups, so it is a matter of internal politics. Then it is a matter of seeing whether any action is possible under the rules and the disputes resolution processes.
But countries and blocks like the EU, the US and indeed China also see trade in geopolitical terms. By and large the trade game is played in terms of rank self-interest while spouting altruistic principle, so it’s not really possible to predict how things will work out.
India in particular is still carrying the scars of Doha in 2001, where against it’s will, and in fear of retribution, it abstained in the final ‘Green Room’ vote. In doing so it saved the round from going down, but the developing countries saw the whole deal as a crock and not in their interests. At Cancun in 2003 they found solidarity and a voice against the rank cynicism of the major powers especially the EU and the US but most adamantly but not so vocally the Japanese, which is why the thing hasn’t progressed since.
But Cancun was significant in that the unanimity of the much-feared socalled “Quad”, the EU, US, Japan and Canada, was barely papered over. In effect it no longer exists.
I think the emergence of the G20 is a much better basis for establishing what is possible, but it too lacks representation from the LDCs, the Least Developed Countries.
The bottom line is that the WTO is the only international organisation that even the most powerful take notice of, so inevitably they had to be brought into the reckoning.
The map shows the southeast of Oz increasing in productivity. It shows the as yet unproductive northwest decreasing. Since the northwest produces zip, the implication of the map is that GW is good for us? Hm.
I think you misread Razor. His point seems to be that the talkfests so far on CC have produced little. So why continue them? Lets go to something productive is more his message as I see it. His trouble is unorthodoxy. Bad Razor.
I think that the map, for what it is worth, shows that the South East coastal fringe will do better than most of the rest of the country. But that is relative to what the rest of the country will be then, not what it is now. The rest of the country will be drying out and vegetation will be disappearing. Australia will return to the dust storms of the 50′s as the prescious soil blows away from the centre. But living on the coast will still be more uncomfortable than it is today.
There are many pestilances to survive as the temperature increases. Take Canada, for instance, where up to 50% of there pine forrest timber is lost to a beetle that chews around under the bark killing the trees. This critter has built up its numbers to swarms in the millions as a result of faulty forrestry practices exacerbated by mild winters.
A 50% loss of production is no small loss. It makes 20 bucks a tonne for carbon seem like small change, which it is. All of the projections of losses due to global warming are based on the knowns, not the unknowns. This beetle was an unknown just a short time ago.
There are plenty more surprises in store for us.
BilB, I’ll get back to the map later, but that shorter version is the Quggin @ 1 is probably right and it is best ignored.
I want now to comment on what wilful @ 4 was told, ie. “that the UK and germany were teh only two advanced countries that were really meaningfully doing anything to reduce emissions.”
I don’t know exactly, but probably better than most. This article quotes WWF as fingering Canada and singles out the UK, Germany and France for praise. My main concern is that we haven’t even mastered the art or science of counting emissions properly yet. Last August I did this post, the first part of which identifies the problems I’m concerned about. It seems that no-one is accounting for air travel, shipping or the emissions involved in importing goods produced elsewhere, especially in the developing world. On one count that converted a 15% reduction in emissions into an 18% increase. Those figures might not be accurate, but they indicate that there is a considerable problem there awaiting to be addressed.
Furthermore, there is the business of soils:
Again, more research and better information seems to be needed.
So I wouldn’t be cracking open the champagne in Britain.
Germany has problems too. They are still building coal-fired power stations and the phasing out of nukes is still in place and an unresolved dilemma.
France has a problem I haven’t yet posted about with it’s nukes. In warmer, drier summers, the water used in cooling towers is breaching environmental standards in the reduced river flows.
Meanwhile the fashion is that we have to let the developing countries increase their emissions while we reduce ours in what they call contraction and convergence. I’ve been saying for some time that that path is madness and will sink us all as a cursory glance at the graph in the post will show.
We’ve already overshot and should all be converging on zero.
When will ‘they’ understand?
“quotes WWF as fingering Canada and singles out the UK, Germany and France for praise.”
That’s great. The nations that get praised now only produce around 3 and 2 times the CO2 per head as China. If China uses France or Germany as their role model for praiseworthy acceptable behavior, rather than the US, they should only double or triple their emissions.
conrad, there is no need to be sarcastic. The first thing is to get emissions to stop going up, to peak and then go down. That rightfully should attract some praise, but not a lot in terms of our overall situation and what needs to be done in the next two decades.
I’m pointing out that if you take all emissions into account, Britain is probably not even doing that.
It’s blindingly obvious from the graph that if China do as you say then we’ll all fail and the Chinese will also lose.
Brian,
I’m just surprised at the great colonial mindset which seems to dominate even the left-wing blogs. Somehow the Chinese are the bad guys, yet all they want is exactly the same as what everyone else does — a car, a garden, a few pets, lots of meat in their diet, access to good health care, a place not far away from their work, a decent retirement etc. This is no different to what the average Western world citizen has and isn’t willing to give up, even if it destroys the Earth. Clearly we value our current state more than the future, even if we don’t want to admit it. The French case is interesting, because it shows that if you are willing to have a really good train system and recycle uranium, you can do this with twice the amount of resources that the average Chinese citizen uses but far less than, say, the average American, who has much the same lifestyle. Obviously Australians don’t want the French style of life, since if they’d built, say, 3 healthy sized reactors (or solar farms for those that hate nuclear or whatever) with the 80 billion stimulus package, we’d be using half the carbon we do now. Coal would be no longer in VIC, NSW, and QLD. Instead, we got to subsidize more cars (!), some freebies to buy junk etc. No doubt an airline subsidy will come out too if Qantas goes broke.
Until this changes (which it won’t), having a bunch of white guys (especially from Australia !!) tell the Chinese they are destroying the Earth and they need to stop sounds a lot like crocodile tears to me, and the reason is obvious: Destroying the Earth a bit can help the Chinese immensely (just look at the last two decades and compare that with, say, Bangladesh, who hasn’t tried hard to industrialize), since if you start with nothing, you can only go forward and therefore risks are worth taking. Even if you lose, you can’t go back much, and indeed, with some of the wealth, you can probably build desalination plants and so on to try and mitigate the effects. Alternatively, if you start with everything (like Australia), then of course, you can only go backwards.
Given this, why not try and think of this in terms of the average extant Chinese citizen, and then it should be pretty clear why they simply say “no” to all of these reduction targets and couldn’t care less about what Australians or Americans think.
What Conrad said @ 25 but replace China with India.
conrad, colonial mindsets have nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. No single country is taking action or even talking about suggested targets that will give us a safe climate without undue risk.
Scotland possibly comes closest on the talking side and some of the European countries on the doing side.
We are talking about China because they are a major economy, a major power and they have been lecturing us.
A couple of years ago it was calculated that 70% of the increase of emissions is coming from the developing countries. The IPPC said the world emissions should peak by 2015. If we did what the Chinese want us to do and they did what they say they are going to do, we won’t even come close.
You may have the fond idea that all we need to do is grow the economy and that will give us the capacity to adapt to whatever happens and all will be well. The latest on sea level rise indicates we are even more likely to get two metres by 2100 than we were when I had a look at it last September. I’m hoping my next post will be on methane where the news is not getting any better.
Mitigation is the only rational policy. Adaptation is what we have to do to meet whatever turns up that we can’t prevent.
All countries need to get real and what every country does is everyone’s business. That’s because it is a problem of the global commons.
The chinese position is quite direct – plain speaking to the West . I think they also see themselves as directing what products will be available as the domestic market grows as predicted.
Their cars are low emission and will probably be so cheap they will eventually dominate the car business.
Talking about the West – ” Their historic responsibility is undeniable but still some Western countries try to blame the developing world in order to distract attention from their own failures.”
We are the failures yet they seem to think that we are telling others including them how to behave ? I love the choice of language – we have ” historic ” responsiblity , it’s “undeniable” . The party line is trotted out even thesedays.
I don’t usually get the impression that any country is saying they haven’t contributed so maybe they think our failure is with regard to our political failure.
A more centralised government deeply involved with business looks the go for the next century.
“Mitigation is the only rational policy”
.
Yes, but mitigation isn’t going to come by rich people telling poor people not to use energy. It’s going to come by smart people selling poor people all the things that make poor people feel rich but don’t use much energy. You can take a leaf out of the French book here, who sell China TGVs and really good heavy nuclear power plants. If Australians had turned on their brains and spent their money on the technology behind, say, the production of solar cells (which Australia was always historically good at), instead of subsidizing cars and all those other essentially worthless industries, we might be selling them something useful too (in fact, perhaps our best export to them ever was the education of that guy that runs Suntech), and given the general level of filth in China, I’m sure they would have been happy ot buy it.
That’s interesting, a simple carbon tax.
.
Yes that is interesting. But as a right-wing idea it’s obviously suspect and I’m aferaid Brain I will have to denounce at next meeting of the soviet. It’s all very well to suggest things that actually work but transgressions of secular theology are the most cardinal sin.
.
Don’t worry I hear Siberia’s nice this time of century.
.
As with the UK they have adopted an 80% emissions reduction target for 2050 but also include international shipping and aviation, which may well be a first.
.
You mean they’ve looked at the, um, actual problem in Scotland and found out that, yeah, it’s actually a problem, like. And it dinnae matter if the carbon comes fra’ beyond yer sov’reign waters like.
.
Actually deploying practical measures that work. In Scotland! Who’d a thought.
No it’s not, but who exactly is saying that? I didn’t.
BTW I think that the Chinese ‘suggestion’ that the West reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 is about right. The West should.
Now a comment on future agricultural production.
As I said earlier, Quiggin @ 1 was probably close to the mark. I’ve updated the post with two images that show a rather different picture. The first is from the WG1 of the 2007 IPCC report. You can see the original image here.
It refers to the period 2080 to 2099 compared to 1980 to 1999 according to the IPCC A1B scenario.
I think that one would assume about a 3C temperature rise from pre-industrial. It shows the distinct mid-latitude drying that is expected with what is termed the expansion of the tropics. However, I’m not sure that China and India will do so well with rainfall.
I’d ask you to go back and see what I said in this post a few weeks ago. For example, Prof Schellnhuber of Potsdam at Copenhagen in March said the carrying capacity of the planet could fall below 1 billion people with a 5-6C temperature increase, which is what Hansen tells us we should expect with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if longer term feedbacks are taken into account.
Also Gwynne Dyer tells of a study in India forecasting a 25% reduction in food output with 2C warming, which is quite possible this side of 2050. China found that their food production could reduce by 38% this century.
None of this is certain but we have to go by the best information available at any time. We are talking here of an unacceptable risk of the end of civilisation as we know it.
The 5 deg C temperature rise map is the picture that correlates better with most of the reading that I have done, and represents the future prospect that I feel is most probable at the end of the century. I try to point out to people that this is within the memory frame of anyone who is in primary school now. I will see the beginning of the transition, but my youngest will get to experience the whole process, assuming she survives the pestilences.
One looming disaster, although further into the future, that you have missed is the breakup of the oceans currents as the sea temperatures rise.
BilB, to be honest the changes in ocean currents is one area of complexity I haven’t gone into all that much as yet. But the latest concern about sea level rise in the Antarctic involves warmer currents attacking the underside of ice shelves, including the giant Ross and Ronne shelves.
“China found that their food production could reduce by 38% this century”
.
That’s obviously one reason they are not as fussed as they could be about reducing emissions. That reduction is about the same as the amount they expect their population will reduce. Given they’re almost self-sufficient now in food, it means that once they get over their mid-century population bulge, it should be smooth sailing according to those figures. Alternatively, it’s a disaster for India, but I doubt the Chinese care too much about the Indians give their recent history — certainly not enough to sacrifice becoming wealthy for.
No one here takes me seriously because I am a RWDB Big Oil Shill. OK
From The Times – 7 July 2009 – Carl Mortished, world business editor of The Times.
“If carbon is a problem, the solution has to be in Asia. Without a commitment from those countries to curb emissions, Copenhagen is a futile gesture. No surprise, however, to learn that in Beijing and Delhi, the message is loud, clear and rising in irritation. There will be no curb, says China. The priority is jobs and wealth creation. Chinese emissions will increase with no date at which growth in carbon output will end. Beijing was in high dudgeon last week over the Waxman-Markey border tariffs and, in response, India and China told us where we could put our climate change treaty. OECD countries emit 11 tonnes of CO2 per capita for China’s 4 tonnes. The Asian duo are demanding cuts in American and European emissions of 40 per cent. Meanwhile, China and India will burn their coal.”
We are talking here of an unacceptable risk of the end of civilisation as we know it.
.
Some of the defense/geopolitical literature shows that intelligence and security agencies are considering the consequences of mass starvation and the resultant headless chicken stampede. I believe that there are probably people who actually want this to happen. As in they want the world’s population culled.
.
Y’know all the inconvenient poor people.
Contraction and Convergence [C&C]
Brian – here are some references re C&C that may help allay your concerns: -
http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC.pdf
http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIjul6.pdf
The propositions are contraction:concentrations [urgency] and within that contraction:convergence [equity].
Applying the C&C principle at the raight rates is the challenge.
Aubrey, thanks for the links. There is a lot of information there and I haven’t read every word. I think the principles are fine, and as to the rates I think we need to cut sooner and deeper than any of the graphs show.
I think the key is getting the advanced economies to accept the need for deep cuts by 2020 AND actually doing something about it, PLUS helping the developing countries expand their economies without resort to polluting technology.
Both are extremely important because India for one won’t accept targets until they see the advanced economies take meaningful action on their own emissions and see the colour of their money in assistance to developing countries. They are highly conscious of a 100% record of broken promises in the context of the World Trade Organisation negotiations.
Brown has suggested a fund which will grow to $100 billion by 2020. The developing countries want up to 1% of advanced economies’ GDP. According to the CIA World Fact Book the GDP of the US, the EU and Japan in 2008 was $33.46 trillion. If I haven’t misplaced a decimal point, Brown’s suggestion is less than a third of this. Probably not enough.
Brian
The C&C model will calculate any rates of C&C so it can do 80% even 100% cuts globally by 2020 with convergence inside that to any date e.g. 2012 if you like.
This at least creates a rationale with which to actually calcuate the ‘right’ rates as an integral where the ‘differentiated’ emissions-entitlements are the same as the total that’s deemed to be available.
There’s a big battle breaking out in Parliament here now as to what the ‘right rates’ are. This seems to me to be marginally less futile than the ‘method’ so far which has been like picking numbers out of a hat.
Here’s a taste: -
EAC Enquiry – Coupled/uncoupled models behind climate-act
Dear Liz
Thanks again for drawing attention to this matter on politics.co.uk.
Further to the letter from Jason Lowe of the Hadley Centre arising, which was copied to you et al [below] confirming that he would reply on this matter, three things are relevant: -
1 he hasn’t replied
2 a letter to Adair Turner [below] about this was sent by Colin Challen MP of EAC 15 07 09
3 the matter was debated in parliament and a letter to Ed Miliband [below] was sent 17 07 09
It is not over yet I am sad to see, and won’t be until satisfactory answers have been provided.
I hope you remain interested in this.
With kind regards
Aubrey
Aubrey Meyer
GCI
37 Ravenswood Road
LONDON E17 9LY
Ph 0208 520 4742
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
15th July, 2009
Colin Challen MP
House of Commons
Westiminster
Dear Lord Turner
Climate Models from which Targets and Budgetsare derived in the UK Climate Act
As you know the Environmental Audit Committee is holding an enquiry covering this matter. There appears to have been some difference of understanding in the evidence submitted with respect to the terms ‘coupled’ and ‘uncoupled’.
Use of the term ‘coupled’
This appears to have been used by different parties with different meanings. EAC realize that the term ‘coupled-model’ has been used in the IPCC generically to describe operations of the Atmosphere-Ocean-General-Circulation-Models [AOGCMs] and that these have developed over time.
However, for the purposes of this EAC enquiry, we are taking the use of the word ‘coupled’ to apply as it was applied by the so-called C4 Modelling Intercomparison Programme [C4 MIP], where ‘carbon-cycle-feedbacks’ were linked to the AOGCMs as well, as published in the IPCC Fourth Assessment [AR4] WG1 Chapter 10.
In AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 on page 791, it says: -
“The emission reduction due to this [carbon-cycle] feedback was not quantified in the the IPCC Third Assessment. [However] Similar to the C4MIP protocol, coupled and uncoupled simulations have been recently performed in order to specifically evaluate the impact of climate change on the future.”
C4 MIP numeric results
The C4 MIP’s quantitative work on this was collated and published for the first time in 2007 by the IPCC AR4 Working Group One, Chapter Ten, page 791. Please refer to the attachment here to see exactly what was published. (attachment).
The charted numerical results of these relate to what is clearly called there in print the ‘Hadley SM’ model. Moreover, these are shown regarding the relationship between CO2 concentrations stabilised in the atmosphere at four values [450,550,750 and 1,000 ppmv] and the carbon-emissions contraction-events that are required to achieve these levels in two different versions. These are called ‘uncoupled’ and ‘coupled’ and it is to these two different sets of results that the attention of the EAC has been directed and it is to these specific numerical results that I now direct your attention.
IPCC Fourth Assessment [AR4] Chapter 10 says on page 791: -
“Positive carbon cycle feedbacks (i.e., reduced ocean and terrestrial carbon uptake caused by the warming) reduce the total (cumulative) emissions over the 21st century compatible with a stabilisation of CO2 concentration at 450 ppm by 300 GtC relative to a hypothetical case where the carbon cycle does not respond to temperature.” This figure is in the case of the Hadley SM model.
The emissions control figure that has been adopted by the government is a 50% cut in emissions globally by 2050 to keep within two degrees overall temperature rise.
It seems thereforeto us to be of fundamental importanceto get a clarification on the matter of the quantitative adequacy of this global emissions contraction eventin the light of this information from IPCC AR4 via the Hadley Centre.
In the graphic, in what is tagged as the C4 MIP’Hadley SM’ model with runs for 450 ppmv, it shows very clearly that the runs for: -
[a] ‘uncoupled’ for 450 ppm, require a 50% cut in carbon emissions globally by 2050 and
[b] ‘coupled’ for 450 ppmv, require an 80% cut in carbon emissions globally by 2050.
. . . and the difference in weight between the two contraction events is as published in the order of 300 GTC. This is a 40% reduction of the contraction-event required when as – coupled – ‘positive-carbon-cycle-feedbacks’ are taken into account
To avoid confusion regarding the ‘names’ [i.e. coupled/uncoupled as described above] can you confirm that this is your understanding of the numeric results in that published evidence?
Without a correct understanding and application of these results, the EAC’s task of evaluating the Government’s targets would seem to be at risk.
Yours etc
Colin Challen MP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
17th July, 2009
The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP
The Secretary of State,
Department of Energy and Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place
London SW1A 2HD
Dear Mr Miliband
Simple Logic – Do you agree?
Colin Challen MP said to you in the House of Commons debate 16th July: -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/chan113.pdf
The Committee on Climate Change’s recommended budgets, for example, appear to be based on some modelling that rather ignores the impacts of coupled models, in which the impact of positive feedbacks and carbon sink failures are calculated. The Hadley centre, which contributed evidence to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, has examined the differences between coupled and uncoupled modelling, and shown that if we followed the coupled model, global carbon emissions would have to be reduced by 80 per cent., not the 50 per cent. that many people are now talking about. That is a radical step change in the budgets thatwe should consider. Should anyone care to look at it, that evidence from our own Hadley centre is repeated authoritatively in the IPCC AR4 work group 1 report, chapter 10, page 791. [See overleaf].
Joan Walley MP subsequently said: -
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) said, the science is really important. The important question on some of the modelling that has been done is whether it is coupled or uncoupled. The detail on that point is in some of the evidence that the Committee has received, and I ask my right hon. Friend to look at it urgently, so that we go to Copenhagen with the best and most reliable science.
For your own use, I enclose a copy of the evidence to the EAC to which she refers. It does focus on IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 page 791 and this shows clearly that: -
[a] ‘uncoupled’ for 450 ppm requires a 50% cut in carbon emissions globally by 2050 and
[b] ‘coupled’ for 450 ppmv requires an 80% cut in carbon emissions globally by 2050.
The runs in question come are ‘Hadley SM’ and Dr Lowe [UKMO] told the EAC that: -
“This [image] comes from the C4 MIP study, which to date is the most comprehensive analysis of that particular type of feedback onto the carbon cycle.”
Lord Turner has agreed with the DECC Committee that if the rate of contraction has to be accelerated like this for reasons of urgency then logically the rate of international convergence to equal per capita sharing globally needs to accelerated relative to that.
I feel this simple logic will ease you negotiating challenges at COP-15? Do you agree?
With kind regards
Aubrey Meyer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Jason Lowe
To: AUBREY MEYER
Cc: BAbrar@wmo.int; Mayer Hillman ; Michael Hutchinson/Tangent Films ; terry.oconnell@blueyonder.co.uk; pearcefred ; julian.rush@itn.co.uk; john.vidal@guardian.co.uk; Richard Black ; david.shukman@bbc.co.uk; “roger.harrabin@bbc.co.uk” ; James Kanter ; Tim YEO ; Colin Challen ; Joan WALLEY ; vicky.pope@metoffice.gov.uk; ruddockj@parliament.uk; Jim Garrison ; jhansen@giss.nasa.gov; Liz Stephens ; clarkeg@parliament.uk; clarkg@parliament.uk; Peter AINSWORTH ; Martin Caton ; bennh@parliament.uk; geofflean@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July, 2009 8:01:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: EAC & IPCC AR4- Hadley Centre Un/Coupled Models
Dear Mr Meyer
Many thanks for your enquiry. I’ve been rather tied up with work on the
AVOID research programme and wasn’t able to respond to your email on
Friday. Please rest assured that the Met Office will return to you with
answers to your questions in a timely manner – but in doing so I’ll
personally need to set some time aside from ongoing commitments to
adequately address the issues you raise.
Given that your questions directly relate to evidence submitted to the
EAC I am keen to ensure that we don’t cut across the focus of that
enquiry in any way and so I’m currently seeking advice on our
obligations before providing a response.
In any case I will be in touch.
Jason Lowe
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 10:09 +0000, AUBREY MEYER wrote:
> Dear Dr Pachauri
>
> Thanks again so much for the interview in Geneva in June. The film and
> transcript of this has been widely distributed and are very helpful.
> http://www.tangentfilms.com/CandCPachauri.mp4
>
> I am encouraged to report that your comments about IPCC AR4 Chapter 10
> being ignored are being noticed.
>
> I couldn’t help noticing that even UK Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
> condemned the recent G-8 meeting for *under-achievement* with its
> prospectus of a 50% cut in global emissions by 2050 inside which
> Developed Countries would make an 80% cut.
>
> He was right – it is not enough to be safe – and this also ignores
> IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10. Below is information relating to why this G-8
> prospectus is false and even known to be false and while this is still
> denied, it is being challenged.
>
> I trust that the people copied here will pay proper attention to this
> matter.
>
> With kind regards
>
> Aubrey
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> UK Environmental Audit Committee [EAC] enquiry on carbon-budgets in
> the UK Climate-Act – > Where did the targets come from? Were the models ‘valid’?
>
> No reply has been received to the email [below] sent last Friday to
> Dr. Jason Lowe of the Hadley Centre. It concerned his evidence to
> EAC on the ‘coupled models’ in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 and the fact
> these are being ignored in the UK Climate Act. So, the same letter was
> sent again to him today in the registered post and copied to several
> people, including Lord Adair Turner and Secretary Joan Ruddock.
>
> It is wholly improper for witnesses to the EAC enquiry on carbon-
> budgets, including witnesses from the Hadley Centre, to openly cite
> myself and openly refer to GCI evidence to the EAC: -
> http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC.pdf
>
> . . . . referring to material published in the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10
> [2007] in the evidence on ‘coupled modelling’, and then make evasive,
> erroneous, confused and self-contradictory remarks about the matters
> raised.
>
> It is wholly proper and necessary that clarification is sought and the
> letter attached [and below] seeks that clarification.
>
> Faced with straightforward questions to this end, not to provide
> answers is minima, irresponsible, a failure to exercise a proper duty
> of care in public service and an indication of how public money is
> being wasted.
>
>
>
> Rightly or wrongly, UK Minister Hilary Benn said recently that COP-15
> is ‘the most important meeting in human history’. The whole issue of
> this argument – the Hadley Centre coupled carbon cycle modelling and
> published [fully peer-reviewed] by IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 in 2007 -
> was animated and shown at his request for him and DEFRA in 2007 by
> GCI: – http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe
>
> http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.hqx
>
>
>
> The entire matter was ignored.
>
>
>
> This current EAC enquiry was set up precisely because it was pointed
> out to EAC that the issue feedbacks as per IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10,
> was still being ignored and that Lord Turner had misled the EAC in
> evidence to them in February on the point of ‘the models used being
> *coupled*’. This misleading continues in evidence from the ICCC and
> now the Hadley Centre. It is quite obvious that this is the case the
> moment the information in the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 is looked at -
> *it could not be clearer*.
>
>
>
> Considering Hilary Benn’s comment and what is actually at stake with
> the danger of runaway rates of global climate change taking hold, it
> is in reality very much more serious than that. So I request the
> people copied here to continue to bring pressure to bear for
> satisfactory answers to be provided to these questions and for this
> whole matter to be properly resolved and reported on: -
>
>
>
> Why is the IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 10 Hadley Centre coupled modelling
> being ignored?
>
>
>
> A knowingly inadequate response to global climate change is a credit
> to no-one and futile. It can be argued that it is no better or even
> worse than no response at all.
>
>
>
> —– Forwarded Message —-
>
> From: AUBREY MEYER
> To: Jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk
> Sent: Friday, 10 July, 2009
> Subject: EAC & IPCC AR4- Hadley Centre Un/Coupled Models
>
> Dear Dr Lowe
>
> Your recent evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee
>
> When giving this on the 23rd of June: -
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvaud/uc616-ii/uc61602.htm
>
> you mentioned that you had looked at the evidence to the EAC submitted
> by GCI: -
> http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC.pdf
> and that “the figure . . . you [Joan Walley MP] refer to comes from
> IPCC in chapter ten . . . “.
>
> I agree and we did indeed make that point in the evidence submitted.
>
> You went on to say: “The curve in question, basically you run the
> model without this effective climate back on to trees and the
> biosphere and you get one number, you run it again with this effect,
> the coupled version, you get a different number and, if you have got
> the same emissions going in, the coupled version leads to typically a
> higher concentration because you are increasing the emissions that
> come back from the biosphere.”
>
> As I pointed out in the written evidence from GCI that you said that
> you looked at, my reading of the figure from IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 [I
> have attached it to this message again as well] is that with
> ‘coupling’ introduced, the image in fact shows the extent of the need
> to reduce the full-term emissions contraction-event associated with a
> given reference curve for concentrations.
>
> Question One: – Can you confirm that that is your understanding
> please?
>
> In the example graphic taken from the IPCC AR4 in what is tagged as
> the C4 MIP ‘Hadley SM’ model with runs for 450 ppmv it shows very
> clearly that what in the IPCC image is called: -
>
> [a] ‘uncoupled’ for 450 ppm requires a 50% cut in carbon
> emissions globally by 2050 and
> [b] ‘coupled’ for 450 ppmv requires an 80% cut in carbon
> emissions globally by 2050.
>
> Question Two: – Can you confirm that that is your understanding of
> this image please?
>
> You went on to say, “The precise values we use to work out the
> magnitude of the coupling comes from elsewhere in IPCC and from a
> study referred to as a C4 MIP study, which to date is the most
> comprehensive analysis of that particular type of feedback onto the
> carbon cycle.”
>
> The runs in question and highlighted in the attached graphic from the
> IPCC AR4 bear the tag ‘Hadley SM’,.
>
> Question Three: – can you as a member of the UKMO Hadley Centre
> please explain to me what ‘elsewhere in the IPCC’ refers to?
>
> Clearing this up would be helpful to this EAC enquiry I believe.
>
>
> With kind regards
>
>
> Aubrey Meyer
> GCI
> 37 Ravenswood Road
> LONDON E17 9LY
> Ph 0208 520 4742
>
>
>
>
–
Dr. Jason A. Lowe
Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit)
Department of Meteorology The University of Reading
Earley Gate Reading RG6 6BB
Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5612 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615
Email:jason.lowe@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk
Thanks, Aubrey.
Yes, I understood that.
If there is a debate then it means people are thinking, presumably.