I thought I’d start this post by reminding us what the task should be at Copenhagen.
The above image is from Copenhagen Diagnosis, Figure 22. It is even more demanding than the earlier version we discussed here.
Contrary to popular belief Garnaut does recognise the issue of carbon leakage. In his 2009 Annual Hawke Lecture he said:
The inclusion of all developed and the world’s major developing countries—say, the developing country members of the G20—would remove all material and legitimate concerns for carbon leakage.
The G20 membership includes Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey. I haven’t checked these against the OECD or the Kyoto Annexe A lists, but the whole G20 group accounts for 85% of world GDP.
It seems to me that the only realistic aim compatible with the preservation of civilisation as we know it is to peak emissions by 2020. I suggest that countries would be well advised to stop the blame game about who’s fault it is and concentrate on the future. The highest emitters are going to have the hardest task in achieving zero by 2040.
The only times when the rhetoric so far has been in contact with the science was when the Sudanese representative suggested that the land temperature in Africa is likely to be 3.5C when the global temperature reaches 2C above pre-industrial and when Tuvalu suggested aims of 1.5C and 350ppm.
Given the hour I’ll post this and later in the day update it with some links to monitor our progress through the week.
Update:
COP15 official news site.
Webcasts are also available.
They also have a climate thinkers blog.
Climate shifts have been blogging from Copenhagen, including this one suggesting that coral reefs don’t do well above about 350ppm.
GreensBlog has been posting from Copenhagen.
Peter Wood has been following the numbers group.
New Matilda has been posting regularly.
As has The Guardian.
The BBC has a section too.
Update 2:
From an earlier post
Figure 3: Meinshausen’s emissions reduction options
Figure 4: Future responsibility for emissions
In his recent address in Cambridge Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (via
David Spratt) put forward this stabilisation scenario:
Great stuff Brian, these are the graphs that need to drive the discussion rather than argie bargy between Australia, US and China about who reduces how much (or not at all).
However, the trajectory I favour is not there I think we should aim for a peak at 2015 and head for zero by 2025.
Reality check: Australia’s carbon emissions soar
We’re the world’s largest coal exporter and our emissions have blown out 82 per cent since 1990. We must reek credibility at Copenhagen. Wake me up when this absurd charade is over.
An important issue that may come up tomorrow is whether the 10 Gt CO2-e or so of excess permits from the first Kyoto commitment period will be carried over into the second commitment period. I was told last week by one of the negotiators that Australia supports carrying over these allowances.
I am so keen to do my bit to reduce carbon emissions I am installing solar PV cells on my roof. I wish that our elected representatives would cut the crap, tell King Coal to shove it and cut Australia’s emissions
What I would like to see is a maintainable convergence program developed in which everybody eventually gets down to a per capita emissions south of 2 tonnes of CO2e equivalent possibly by 2035.
It seems to me that to achieve this with equity we are going to need to create a global fund that could be properly controlled and disbursed in support of measurable programs that conform either to the MDG goals, goals tangibly related to the MDG and/or those of a convergence programs coming out of Copenhagen. IMO, both action on climate change and broader development aims can and should be treated as part of a holistic program of development. This will lead to the most bang for each aid dollar and be most likely to attract the political support of constituencies in the most developed countries.
A formula could be devised weighting emission costs by all countries (here countries would be defined by populations so as to evade disputes over land boundary changes) over the last 100 years. Assuming a convergence point at 2035 and a baseline of 2tonnes CO2e per capita one could “cost” emissions at an agreed rate (possibly $US100 2008 dollars) and on a discount scale which makes emission above the baseline in 1908-9 1% of emissions in 2007-8, the following year 2% etc. Countries in the top 10% of per capita GDP could have their group “account” reconciled and a per capita cost assigned (scaled by wealth) with a repayment schedule aimed at reconciliation by 2035. As each year passed out of the last 100-year mark, it would be excluded and replaced by the new year being added, the sum recalculated and a new payment schedule assigned.
Ditto the tranches underneath until we got into the bottom 50%. The focus of each tranche’s programs would be the countries at the corresponding opposite end of the scale, for whom supervision of program progress would be made.
Convergence should be in a range of areas, and not just per capita emissions. It should include convergence in outcomes in health and quality of life, education, welfare, population growth, housing, water and transport provision along with the accompanying governance issues. Of course, implicit in all this would be accounting methods that were robust, verifiable and uniform which would be agreed by all.
Such a comprehensive scheme would be a great step forward.
Peterc @ 1, I should have made clear that the stabilisation scenario in the graph, according to the text around it in the Copenhagen Diagnosis document, gives us a 75% chance of staying within the 2C limit. You and I would regard 2C as too high and a 25% chance of exceeding it an unacceptable risk. So for a safe climate we need to do way better, indeed something along the lines of what you suggest.
This should help with motivation: all teams at Copenhagen should be told by their respective populations not to bother coming home without a strong deal.
You’re not welcome back. Piss off.
As economists have been saying for decades now, the later you start on controlling carbon emissions, the more painful it is by orders of magnitude.
Think how that chart would have looked at the time of Kyoto, rather than Copenhagen – a really modest carbon tax or its ETS equivalent (to replace, say, state payroll taxes) would have been all that’s needed. It’s a problem that could have been fixed at negligible economic cost (read: barely noticeable change in lifestyle), that will now require a modest but significant cost, and if we keep delaying will eventually impose a massive cost.
We are entitled to despise the Howards, Bushes, Exxons, etc of this world who prevented that early action. But not as much as we should uttterly despise the “sceptics” and greedy free riders who are trying to prevent action now.
To follow the link given by carbonsink @ 2, this is what is proposed:
There were multiple mentions of this on Radio National this morning without once making clear what was actually being contemplated.
If the above is correct, it would mean that we don’t count emissions due to bushfire or drought, but then we would count the emissions sequestered as the forest grows again and carbon is sequestered in the soil during better seasons.
If so it is a barefaced scam which does its authors and proponents no credit.
dd what’s changed over the last few decades, indeed since 2006, is the notion that in a longer term stabilisition scenario there is a significant capacity for the earth’s sinks to absorb carbon safely. This was usually put at 5gt of carbon or 18,35gt of CO2. If you divide the figure by 9 billion it gives a per capita budget of about 2 tonnes of CO2 per person. The problem with this is twofold.
Firstly, at 387ppm or about 450ppm CO2e we are already at a point where in the long term we’ll almost certainly blow the 2C socalled ‘safe guard rail’ and will suffer sea level rise of many metres.
Secondly, any emissions above the preindustrial carbon balance will lead to an increase of atmospheric carbon concentration, ocean acidity etc.
That’s the way I understand it and would be pleased to be shown to be wrong.
I’ve just heard the Ruddster defending Australia’s approach, saying that land use (including forestry) amount to 18% of total emissions and we can’t leave them out, for goodness sake.
True indeed, but then we’d need to include both sides of the balance sheet in Copenhagen accounting. How we deal with this internally is another matter.
The only way to include soil carbon in a way the incentivises behaviour change at an individual farm level is to measure soil carbon at an individual farm level. It would be different for different paddocks. By and large too difficult and too expensive.
On another matter Tim Hollo reports on the protests and the lack of access for civil society representatives to delegates.
Following the 1999 Seattle WTO riots measures have been taken to keep the unwashed away from the real action, for example by having the 2001 WTO meeting in the desert in Doha, and then in 2003 in Cancun on an isthmus were a fence was used to keep the people out.
Even if you are accredited I understand it is difficult to find out what is going on let alone exert influence. I heard on bloke say he learnt most by overhearing conversations in the toilet.
Brian@6,
Thanks for the clarification. The precautionary principle means we should aim for 1.5C and reduce atmospheric C02 from current 390ppm level given dramatic climate change in progress. It seems Australia’s negotiators the Rudd government are a country mile from this position – conducting “politics as usual”.
LeftyE@7,
Agreed. The negotiators should be barred from re-entering Australia to protect our climate security, and exiled to Tuvalu issued with some floaties.
Brian@10,
The nifty Google emissions data interactive graph illustrates how high per capita emissions from Australia and the US are. Costa Rica seems to be a country to emulate as they are below 2 C02 tonnes/person. [link]
This would also give room for India and other developing nations to increase their emissions per capita, while China would need to reduce their emissions a bit.
Brian@11,
You can watch plenaries etc on the UNFCCC website, when I am in the conference centre, I will usually do that rather than watch the actual thing. The Earth Negotiations Bulletin is also a very good resource, as well as ‘eco’ from CAN. Talking to people is of course the best way to find things out. The Australian Govt also has a briefing for NGOs on most days.
But thanks for the tip, I’ll keep my ears open next time I am in the Bella Centre toilet…
I’m heartily sick of the environmental collapse being reduced to a discussion of co2 emissions and warming. Charles Darwin learned from Malthus that a population that grows exponentially if unchecked by the environment will face collapse and the possibility of extinction… on the day that Rudd said he thought a population of 35 million would be good for Australia, an international gathering of fisheries scientists pointed out that the Bluefin tuna spawning stocks had been reduced to 5% of 1950 level and were probably doomed to extinction. Our response was to reduce our enormous catch by 25%…and we protest about Japanese whaling.
With the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere acidifing the oceans,coral reef systems are collapsing and ocean fish stocks are down by 90%. Rain forests and their animals are eaten out…”clap hands for Jesus” must be replaced by people who understand the second law of thermodynamics and biological systems, before we can start.
Nev, that’s all well and good. This year I did a few posts on food, farming, one on the ocean and we’ve also done population. I’d hoped to do a lot more. This year I’ve done more than twice as many posts as the year before, but time is limited. Also you can’t talk about everything all at once, so bear with us
I find it very difficult to understand how we can on the one hand massively increase the level of coal exports in Queensland and NSW and then pretend we are a serious player on the world stage in cutting carbon emmissions. Surely exporting coal is going to be counted in any carbon emissions equations if not now then in the future…
A bit of an update from the contact group on numbers. Umbrella group has suspended KP contact groups for the time being as a response to G77 and China suspending LCA discussions until KP finishes.
barryrutherford, I think it’s one of the few generally agreed principles that it’s the nation that releases the CO2 that has to account for it. So it’s when the coal is burnt, not mined. That said, mining itself is far from carbon-neutral – apart from the fuel burnt by mining equipment and transport, some coal seams are very gassy and the methane mining releases is a more intense greenhouse gas than CO2. The deal Wong and Macfarlane cooked up neatly removes ‘fugitive emissions’ from the ETS calculations, but I’m not sure that fudge will enjoy approval at Copenhagen.
It’s time to seriously evaluate your risk management strategies – there is zero chance of the factions of carbon polluters (sorry, our government representatives) coming to any serious agreement with the potential victims.
If you had to hole up somewhere in 5-20 years in a self sustaining community that had no exposure to sea level rises (and think pretty hard about where our coal fired power stations are in the Hunter and how regularly the area floods), where are you going to go?
I’m not kidding.
Nev is right. We can’t exclude the increasing human head count from the list of mitigation factors to be looked at. He is spot on that our politicians and most of the public for that matter refuse to discuss population growth in relation to climate change. IT is relevant to Copenhagen – in the sense that is the missing piece of the puzzle. And must get on to the political agenda for the next round of politicking.
If we can cut our emissions by 40% per capita by 2050 and keep our population to 21 million – then we will cut our total emission by – you guessed it 40%.
If on the other hand we increase our population to 35 million as the ALP and the Liberals and the unions and employer groups all advocate – our total emissions will actually rise.
Nev isn’t asking that population growth be discussed in addition to Climate Change. He rightly is saying it must be raised urgently as a critical factor of Climate Change.
The policy change should be
a) triple our humanitarian acceptance program (currently 13,750 per annum)
b) maintain family reunion program (currently 60,300 per annum)
c) slash drastically our business and skilled visa programs which is the key driver of our population growth (108,100 skilled/business per annum)
From the COP15 site Climate talks in turbulence. Copenhagen climate talks partly suspended on Monday noon after African-led protests.
Also thanks to Peter Wood on the other thread Canada appears to have a new deal for greenhouse gas reduction targets of 40% of 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% percent by 2050. Plus this:
Here’s the official news release.
Climate Shifts suggests that coral reefs don’t do well above about 350ppm.
It is now 4.40pm in Copenhagen, official talks have been suspended all day for parties to play chicken; talks look like they are about to resume now – including contact groups on the Kyoto Protocol. This was supposed to be a long productive day, and the real work is now only about to begin..
Ute Man @ 19, I’m preparing a small corner of paradise in the wheat’n'sheep country north of Adelaide (400m above sea level) as we speak.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist posting the link to the wall st journal article before. You might want to check the original source that Brian linked to
Brian, I think re: Canada that you might have been Yes-men’d
Yes Man story link.
Thanks folks. I was thinking this might be a hoax, but instead of being a wet blanket without evidence I settled for “Canada appears to have a new deal”. I knew you clever people would sort it out if it wasn’t true.
As the saying goes Brian, if it seems to good to be true … it probably is …
As I read the statement, the radical disconnect between the behaviour of the Harper government and this statement was too strong.
One might as well imagine the Rudd government declaring an end to administrative detention or the wind up of coal burning in Australia or for legalised drugs and gay marriage.
You know right off that it’s a hoax.
That’s a great commitment from Canada. Momentum now too strong for the deadbeat bludger corporate bootlicker Australian gene to prevail. There goes Abbott’s Plan A.
Canada is committing 5% of Canadian GDP in climate aid until 2030 – $13b on their own. This is a deal-shifter which could save the Copenhagen talks.
You may not be a fan but it appears to me that Monbiot sums up the psychodynamics of the crisis very well.
Er, sorry, killed the link.
hi brian – thanks for such an informative post. i couldn’t find an email so sorry to spam the others here. i know you think we shouldn’t focus on the past but was wondering what you thought about the carbon-debt/carbon budget approach as the most just way of dividing the atmospheric space. it’s in Bolivia’s proposal and all the information is at: http://www.climate-debt.org an organisation i’ve been volunteering with. FYI the bolivians have actually submitted the most ambitious proposal at COP15 with a 300ppm and 1 degree stabilisation target. they think that will require a 52% cut by 2017 by developed countries AND extra finance for mitigation action in developing countries. sounds almost impossible. frightening that maybe it is….
Hal19000 @ 18:
But Australia is happy to export coal to countries that don’t account for it, have no price on carbon, and have no intention of putting a price on carbon. Like barryrutherford says @ 16, how can we massively increase our coal exports (and profit enormously from that) and expect to be taken seriously in climate negotiations? We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, and the Saudis are running an openly denialist agenda in Copenhagen. If we were honest with ourselves, we would too.
carbonsink, we’re exporting death and we shouldn’t be doing it.
alexinbangkok @ 34, I have to go out for the day now, so I’ll think about it and have another go tonight. But my initial reaction is that we are talking about strategy and whatever works is fine.
I heard the Bolivian representative saying that capitalism got us into this mess, so maybe we should try a different way. Maybe, but it’s going to take more than a speech at Copenhagen.
BTW I put some links at the end of the post to sites that have been carrying reports on Copenhagen. If you have any more please put them in comments and I’ll add them to the list.
I would like to follow up on the idea of carbon debt/budget, that those who put the current CO2 into the atmosphere should pay to clean it up. Obviously this does not stretch back indefinately in time, because the CO2 is eventually removed from the atmosphere. However, it is presumably possible to apportion the current stock of atmospheric CO2 according to the different nations’ emission profiles?
It does not seem intuitively reasonable to argue (as apparently the US is doing) that effectively “the past is the past, and we should restart the clock arbitrarily to the present”.
The mess that is pushing us close to the brink is clearly the moral responsibility of those who put it there. Any further additions to the mess are clearly also the moral responsibility of the respective countries.
Maybe there should be a two-tier system? Firstly, emission reduction targets for CURRENT emissions. Secondly, targets and payment for REMEDIATION (via e.g geosequestration, revegitation, etc)?
The remediation payments could then be the mechanism for apportioning climate aid from developed nations to developing nations?
Countries which sell a product which can produce emissions (e.g. coal, oil, LNG) should not strictly be responsible for subsequent emissions from their use. That should be the burden of those who use the product, according to how it is used.
It is not totally wholesome e.g. for the Norwegians and Saudis to be selling oil which is subsequently burnt as fuel. Similarly our good selves selling LNG which is used as a fuel. However, the oil and gas could be used to make petrochemicals with a completely different emissions profile.
The end-use cop-out is less arguable for coal (oh, bugger…), but nonetheless it would seem reasonable to hold the customer to account for how they use a product. It seems to be a similar moral dilemma to arms sales to rogue states – you aren’t committing a crime, but you know darn well what your product will be used for…
This cop-out would incidentally save Australia’s environmental bacon for a while, until the Chinese got sick of paying for their emissions and found an alternative energy source.
Anyway, my main point was that a carbon debt/budget approach seems intuitively reasonable, and a way out of the morass of claims about what is “fair” and about how to apportion climate aid.
Elise
What did you think of my proposal to account for carbon dioxide emissions debt?
Monbiot vs Plimer on Lateline was frickin’ hilarious! Somehow I don’t think Bolt will be linking to that video on his blog tomorrow.
ust watched Monbiot vs Plimer on Lateline – those in denial will never be convinced as there as none so blind as those who will not see. It is the end of the world as we know it and those in denial can’t accept that.
But Rudd and Wong are actually worse and more dangerous – they acknowledge climate change and say urgent action is required – then they cook up an compromised ETS that won’t reduced emissions until 2030.
I always thought of Plimer as dishonest and whacky, but until tonight’s effort I thought he’d be better at covering it up than he was. He made Abbott look sharp.
I still think Monbiot gave too much ground on the emails. He ought to have slapped that down, but he seems to have lost his head oover it.
He also should have challenged the CRU-based 1998 was the warmest year — when including the poles fully, as NASA/GISS does, shows it wasn’t. Ironic though that Plimer attacks CRU on the emails and relies on them for the 1998 claim.
That ‘debate’ is begging for someone to produce some zombie special effects for whenever Plimer is on screen and post it online – when he wasn’t trying to imitate a bad politician he put forth the same old zombie arguments again and again. He wasn’t without an unintentional sense of humour though, having the cheek to claim Monbiot was ‘smearing’ scientists, one of Plimer’s own stock tactics in almost every interview I have ever read or heard him give on climate change.
I think Peterc is largely right, only the other day I had someone sending me a link to ‘Lord’ Monckton ‘pwning’ some Greenpeace activist. The man is clearly not all there – you only have to consider the positions he has on a number of other issues to know that – but here he was being held up as an expert on climate science.
Next thing we know they’ll be bringing out the timecube guy to prove that climate science cannot possibly be right as it does not use cube physics.
The problem I have with major developing countries increasing their emissions while the developed world reduces theirs is that the whole thing has gone past the point where we have the budget of remaining emissions to allow it. Have a look at Figures 3 and 4 in this earlier post. I’ve reposted these images at the end of the post above and added one from Hans Joachim Schellnhuber via an article by David Spratt.
What is required of the USA and Australia is politically as well as physically impossible.
I was taken with a suggestion which I think may have come from Philip Sutton that the rich countries should pay for the sequestration of carbon equivalent to 100ppm by planting trees, biochar etc. I think Elise may have been suggesting something similar above.
The way it’s shaping up is that the poor countries are taking a view which reflects the true urgency of the situation. The rich countries are hallucinating about the science and looking after their vested interests, while the major developing countries won’t be bullied out of the chance to become rich even if it destroys us all.
David Spratt has a some good recent articles at the Climate Code Red site especially this one. I also found this one by Ben Eltham along the way.
dj @ 43: Looking forward to the Monbiot vs Plimer transcript: “Answer the question. Answer the question. Answer the question” … “Show some manners young man”.
Meanwhile, Copenhagen negotiator accuses Rudd of lying. Seems he thinks the Ruddster isn’t fair dinkum. He’s all spin and no action. Very perceptive man.
I’ve been talking to a few climate denialists lately and it’s absolutely hopeless giving them evidence. Their reply is that it’s all tainted because it’s government funded, or the scientists are dishonest and it’s all a matter of opinion. And above all, it’s all about a ‘world government’. The ignorance and superstition is just impossible to combat. And then they’ll show you some dodgy statistics they’ve fund somewhere on the net and proclaim them to be ‘facts’. They’ve subddenly uncovered the truth behind this conpsiracy. Hopefully, these wingnuts are just a tiny percentage, but it makes me despair.
CS@45 above:
He also invoked the bloke upstairs … For God’s sake
So much for that book he wrote demolishing god …
Fine, there’s no point talking with them – even they admit that. They wouldn’t be issuing so many threats of violence if they thought they were part of some actual ‘debate’.
They’re just fringe whackos with unstable personalities who cant handle change, and have decided to take the stronger ethical stance of others personally – because they’re also narcissists, who imagine these global issues are somehow about *them*.
(Anyway, we’ll take care of them when the world govt starts after Copenhagen :0)
Yes, I agree they’re very much narcissists. They like to believe they have the ‘knowledge’ and they’re far superior to those feeble-brains who have been hoodwinked. But, it’s so frustrating. The best thing is to ignore them. I just watched the ‘Lateline’ interview and I thought Jones let Plimer get away with murder. He should have absolutely insisted that he answer the questions, instead of letting him deflect them.
Oh, and George Monbiot is really handsome.
anthony n @ 32 this may have been the Monbiot article you referred to. Humanity needs to redefine itself.
After watching the news this morning, I’m in despair.
Why’s that Paul? Copenhagen?
Rudd’s ETS bullshit busted: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/16/2772948.htm
A simple tactic I’ve used effectively when dealing with denialists is :
1. Demand evidence for their assertions (this may need stressing over several posts)
2. Require specifics – eg. published papers, how does x affect AGW science, which aspect ? how significant ?
3. Highlight the divergence between their statements and reality (need some good bookmarks dealing with the commonly advanced furphies employed by the denialists.)
4. Lay on the ridicule (optional), but tends to shut them up (at least)
Steps 1-3 have the advantage of enabling “sceptics” to be exposed to the actual evidence, and to hopefully modify their views without being alienated, and will reveal the differences between “scepticism” and denialism.
Step 4. is not only good fun, but has the possibility of actually encouraging the denialists to “have a good hard look” at their belief system – at least theoretically.
In practice, however, I have never encountered a “sceptic” who was not, in reality, a denialist.
Pterosaur, you could add:
5. Conduct a fish slapping dance
[link]
Yeah, Lefty, Copenhagen.
As for k.Rudd. Well, we all knew he was selling out to the coal industry and big polluters, didn’t we? But its good to hear some-one else say it who noramally has little to do with Australia. Not that it will make the slightest bit of difference.
Yesterday Emma Alberici made a useful summary of the four main sticking points in the conference.
I was disappointed in Rudd’s characterisation of the G77 walk out as a bit of political grandstanding. It’s essentially insulting and condescending. It seems Rudd’s role as friend of the chair was well and truly compromised before he got there by his own doing.
Speaking of the chair, I heard last night that she resigned, to be replaced by the Danish PM. Again some delegations knew about this days beforehand, whereas to others it was a surprise, reinforcing the apparent rich country kitchen cabinet impression so far. Then the Danish PM had to spend time because of his own lack of perceived impartiality answering questions about the famous draft text.
On the positive side, most people reckon 120 heads of state are going to want to sign off an something, so something there will no doubt be.
The United States has been watering down the nature of developing country commitments.
The US has just, via Hillary Clinton, declared its willingness in principle to support a $100 billion per year fund to assist the developing world in meeting binding and verifiable commitments.
This does sound like a significant step forwards. Here’s the link.
Hope Hill and Bazz got their timing right. Could be right.
Yanks gonna throw $100 billion* at other countries for something that Bolt & Plimer & Tony Abbott says is crap. Who do you trust?
* 10% of Australian GDP or 0.7% of USA GDP.
Don’t get too excited – it is $100 billion total until 2020 from what I have read – the $100 billion is not what the US will put in, it is a total fund – the funding will come from public and private sources, as well as unspecified financing mechanisms.
The amount is considerably less than Europe wants and will be conditional on developing countries allowing independent verification of their emissions.
Yes, LO, from the link:
Also:
Whatever that means.
GreensBlog has a series of posts on the second week. The last two by Christine Milne (here and here) are very depressing.
Australia has won No. 1 Fossil of the Day for trying to pressure Pacific Islands to accept 2 degrees of warming instead of 1.5.
Line of the conference goes to Chavez: “If the climate was a bank, they’d have saved it by now”
Useful site where you can track individual country commitments. http://www.climateactiontracker.org/
Australia is rated “Inadequate”
Still in despair about all this. It seems to me the only way out of this mess is to throw out all these useless bastards and put in a whole lot of people who will actually do something real about global warming.
As a kid e-mailed ABC2 this morning. “There are no jobs on a dead planet.”
China appears to be prepared to become more flexible about transparency and international verifiablity.
A UN Secretariat document has been leaked showing that “existing pledges would lead to a catastrophic 3C rise.”
Here is the story from the COP-15 site.
Australia and other countries have been twisting arms with promises of direct funding for threatened island countries to give up demanding a 1.5C target.
It’s a great line from Chavez, LeftyE, because everyone knows its true. If banks are too big too fail and so must be saved, what does that mean for the climate?
I remain quietly hopeful that the US offer may be a circuit breaker in the negotiations.
Yes, $100 billion pa until 2020 is light, probably by a factor of about four, especially if the early years are opn the low side, but it’s a start. Once the principle is established, we can haggle over the numbers as we match expenditure to actual programs. At the moment, there’s no vehicle set up to dispurse this money or evaluate projects or even a set of standards against which the claims of this or that project could be measured. I take it as self-evident that to secure the political support of western constituencies, one would want robust real-time oversight and matching of funds to specific outcomes on emissions abatement or foreclosure.
But the broad principles underpinning such a proposal — restorative justice, equity, and a pay-off in a robust convergence program embracing the entire planet are beyond serious demur.
I’ve just heard Greg Borschmann talking to Tin Cox about the UN Secretariat leak suggesting that what’s on the table will leadto 3C.
It frankly sounds low to me. Turns out that it is based on emissions rising to 560ppm, which is a very conservative estimate.
Secondly it is based on a climate sensitivity of 3C, which takes into account short term feedbacks only. 4-5C would be more likely.
It seems there is a way forward if the conference has the wit to grasp it. With the two-track negotiations the Kyoto group can lock in the offers presently on the table without prejudice to raising the bar later. The broader “Copenhagen” group can take on board 1.5C and 350ppm as an aspirational goal and then agree to examine it in 2010 leading up to the next talkfest in Mexico.
One of the basic problems has always been the lack of ambition in the US proposal and the unwillingness of the Senate to go even so far without China and India making more definite commitments, plus the lack of trust which demands external monitoring.
Good news on China shifting ground on transparency Brian – and yes Fran, it looks like Clinton’s $100b moolah was a game shifter.
I forgot to mention the 112 countries have now adopted 350ppm and 1.5C. I’m wondering whether there is a single developed country or major aspirational polluter amongst them. The ones to check, I think, are Brazil, France and Norway.
The Plimer vs Monbiot transcript is up.
BTW, how many times did Plimer hold up his book? Ten?
Plimer is a newt, blindly writhing through feces in the corner of a progressively drying swamp. His craven nonsense is on par with the best of Lewis Carrol; he can’t even manage a coherent fantasy, demented stories hanging in tatters off him like half-sloughed skin.
Every time I watch him I’m surprised by how pathetic and incredible he is.
What a monumental waste of time!
It is a waste of time, Brian. Nevertheless. As we wait for COP15 to let us know our fates, does anybody have a bead on what makes a Plimer tick? Am seriously interested to understand his motivations.
President Morales of Bolivia is really giving them some curry at the minute at COP15.
Them. Meaning us & the other Tier 1 countries (aka First World).
He says the rich are negotiating from the happy position that only the poor will die. Fair point.
Getting better. Chavez is up now – and calling Obama a running dog.
The actual leaked memo, courtesy of 350.org, courtesy of GreensBlog.
The UK Met Office have advised that to meet a 2C target emissions would have to peak by 2020. They consider that it would be virtually impossible to reduce emissions by more than 5% per year, which is what would be required.
1.5C is virtually impossible, because hitting zero tomorrow would still yield 1.3C.
Geo-engineering here we come!
Please not the date on the story was 10 December, a week ago. We didn’t need the leaked email.
Word is coming through via ABC/BBC that a deal has been done, details to follow.
I’ll be out for the rest of the day.
ABC radio news 10am AESST:
No binding agreement. Low reduction targets. $30 billion pledged by rich nations for 2010-2012. $100 billion pledged per annum after 2020.
Europe & UN calling the “political statement” weak.
Weak as water.
Yep, aside from the REDD deal, which is one bright spot – its weak as piss. On to Germany 2010.
Well, what a surprise. Has anyone ever watched an addict trying to go off his or her legal or non legal drugs of choice. Next thing I suggest a 10 step program and CO2 Anonymous meetings.
I’ll be first to confess, for I have poured 7.3m3 of concrete on Thursday as part of my self sustaining risk management program (ute man @19). And DI(NR)@24, moi aussi a 430m asl, all year running creek and stacked with tropical fruit trees, small crops and of course chooks. Just hoping there will be no Brisbane line when the boats are arriving and the monsoon will not stop for some climate changing reason.
My paddock has a creek, Ootz, but I’ve never seen any water in it. It probably only runs in the really, really wet years we get once every decade or so.