I saw two seemingly separate items today that I think more people should draw together.
The first from BBC news: Greenhouse gas levels rising at fastest rate since 1984
This isn’t news to anyone that reads this blog regularly: concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide hit a record level in 2013. News flash: they hit a new record in 2014. And they’ll do it again in 2015, 2016, 2017, …, and on until we innovate and deploy technologies that remove the gas from the atmosphere.
The article also includes what I consider to be a fairly realistic assessment of upcoming climate negotiations:
While stressing the need for that agreement to be “legally binding”, Mr Davey explained that actual targets for emissions reductions may not be covered by that term.
“We do believe that the foundations of the agreement have to be legally binding, so what that might be? That might be the rules. That might include the measurements, the monitoring and the verification and those sorts of things.
“We would prefer the targets to be legally binding, we already have legally binding targets in the UK and we are trying to argue for more ambitious legally binding targets for the EU, but we recognise that other countries find that a little bit more challenging.
The agreement in question is the follow-up to the failed Copenhagen climate conference. Countries since then have talked a lot about what they want to accomplish in terms of emissions reductions, but nobody has put together anything concrete. As Mr Davey said, the UK has “legally binding targets”. As with anything, the devil is in the details. The UK isn’t going to meet their “legally binding” reductions (see below). And what will happen when they finally acknowledge that they won’t? Who knows – it will be the first time such a thing happens. I think a safe bet is almost nothing will happen. And therein lies the problem. With no penalty, there is little incentive to actually make and enforce policies that will achieve stated goals.
The second article is one with which I disagree on many points, though its presence is good for discussion: Sorry policy-makers, the two-degrees warming policy is likely a road to disaster.
First, the obligatory admonishment: more disaster talk. Really? Really? Quick to the chase: it turns people off from whatever else you have to say. Starting your article with it is the worst strategy. I’ve worked my way through climate disaster porn for over a decade now, so I continue.
The article tries to move the goal posts – the wrong way. Alexander White, for the Guardian, argues that while a 2°C limit on global warming is the commonly used target for climate negotiations, the limit should be reduced to a 1.5°C. After noting that national pledges aim only for 3°C and the real world is actually on track for 4°C. Now I ask: what possible motivation would countries have to aim for 1.5°C when current policies lead to 4°C+? Will moving the goal posts to 1.5°C somehow convince climate negotiators to go at it a bit harder? No, of course not.
White makes several arguments for the 1.5°C target, based on moral points which I agree with. However, neither he nor I can will the world to 1.5°C policies just because we want to. Real people have to argue for real policies – mostly in democracies in Western nations. Mr Davey had it correct: the first step is measurements, monitoring, and verification. Countries should have implemented those rules 25 years ago. They didn’t and we’re well on our way to 4°C.
Pricewaterhouse Cooper has the following in their summary:
In the Index’s G20 analysis, an unexpected champion surpassed the annual target – Australia – recording a decarbonisation rate of 7.2% over 2013, putting it top of the table for the second year in a row. Three other countries – the UK, Italy and China – achieved a decarbonisation rate of between 4% and 5%. Five countries, however, increased their carbon intensity over 2013 – France, the US, India, Germany and Brazil.
The UK achieved a one-time decarbonization rate of between 4% and 5%. What do they need to achieve their legally binding targets? Between 7% and 9% every year until 2020. And beyond too. Those decarbonization rates have never been achieved in history. To achieve them requires beyond Chinese-level investments in clean energy research and deployment by every country for the next 100 years. Until we come close to achieving that, arguing over a 1.5°C target versus a 2°C or 4°C target is peeing into the wind. It doesn’t accomplish much of anything useful. On a related note, Chinese 2013 fossil fuel deployment far exceeded every clean energy deployment worldwide during the same year. We need to spend our time establishing, implementing, and improving novel climate and energy policies. What we’re really arguing over isn’t 1.5°C vs. 2°C, it’s 3.9°C vs. 4.2°C – which is not much of a difference, is it?
White finishes with:
A challenge for us all leading up to the New York summit is that the 2°C target rhetoric is likely sabotaging policy negotiations that would meaningfully tackle global warming.
I disagree. This is the result of a fundamental misinterpretation of what policy negotiations failed to tackle historically. Developed nations will continue to fail if the focus remains on abstract targets such as 2°C or 1.5°C – neither of which is achievable anyway.