The Road to Copenhagen - A Parable

Two brothers stand in their blazing home

Each accuses the other of starting the fire

Each insists that the other should be the first to take action to put out the flames

Each adds fuel to the flames

The house burns to the ground

The brothers are homeless

The brothers are named 'Developing' and 'Developed'.



Anon



With goodwill and cooperation this need not happen.
.

Climate Change - The Impracticality of a 'Global 2 Degree C' Target

Global temperature rise is a bad starting point for negotiating climate change targets


The EU, the G8, and many other countries consider that limiting global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius is an attractive goal for climate change mitigation policy to avoid 'dangerous climate change'. If taken as the international basis for setting climate change mitigation targets the use of a global temperature rise limit is likely to pose difficulties for climate change negotiators.

Two degrees Celsius ('2C') is a fine headline target for politicians to sign up to, and a useful slogan for the public, however its translation into practical targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and into desirable levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is more problematic, and there are also those who consider '2C' too high a value.

A global climate change target needs to provide a practical framework for national GHG mitigation targets and actions. Reducing CO2 emissions is certainly the key step to take in combating the effects of climate change, notwithstanding the fact that other GHG emissions - methane, nitrous oxide etc also need to be reduced.

In Copenhagen the international agreement that is most urgently needed is one that sets clear and unambiguous targets for drastically reducing CO2 emissions, since they comprise the largest proportion of GHG.

The task faced by world leaders and politicians - that of translating the scientific information about climate change into politically acceptable and practical national targets - is already difficult and there is a desperate need to put policy in place speedily.

So why use temperature rise as an overall global target as the EU and G8 have done? Framing negotiations in terms of '2C' surely serves only to increase the complexity of the task.

Politically expressed as 'limiting average global temperature rise at sea level to two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels' a limit to global temperature rise seems a straightforward goal. However, temperature rise as a key indicator focuses on the end result - global warming, not on the GHG emissions that cause it. Global temperature limit is an indicator that is distanced from the practical issues of quantified GHG emissions limitation.

Using a global '2C' target as the starting point for international climate change negotiations could leave open a chain of opportunities for varied interpretations of meaning and inhibit progress towards practical targets.

Targets, if framed in the context of 'global average temperature rise' would need to be mapped to the causes of global temperature rise because, in international negotiations, all parties would need to agree a common interpretation of what a global '2C' target means and how it would relate in practical terms to potential mitigation actions.

Do we really want negotiators to dissipate good will in Copenhagen arguing about possible interpretations of the meaning of '2C global average temperature change' when what is needed is to negotiate quantifiable mitigation targets that can be evolved into practical policy?

Temperature rise relates to atmospheric GHG change by means of best estimates and likely ranges not with certainty*. Such uncertainties would need to be incorporated in any translation from 'global temperature rise' into national targets for practical actions to mitigate human induced warming. Undertaking such a translation process raises the spectre of endless political wrangling over nuances related to temperature rise, rather than negotiation of the tonnage emissions targets that are the heart of the matter.

It is however possible to quantify directly, by country, the millions of tonnes of fossil fuels burnt each year and hence each country's contribution to global warming in terms of CO2 emissions.

In summary

It is more practical to set targets in terms of CO2 emissions, which are the cause global warming, and which connect directly to national fossil fuel energy consumption, rather than work through to reach national targets from '2C' temperature rise.

Targets closely related to the causes of warming can be defined in terms of CO2 (or CO2e) emissions, CO2 concentrations or indeed tonnes of carbon in fossil fuels burnt. Use of these quantities provides a more direct starting point for negotiating climate change mitigation targets than global temperature limits. If required emissions based targets could then be related back, through models, to temperature rise to check that they are consistent with the desired temperature limit.

While global temperature rise appears in the headlines, and the need to mitigate the unprecedented rise in global temperatures is urgent, framing negotiations around '2C' temperature rise is likely to impede progression to a new international agreement and using emissions based targets would provide a clearer route for negotiations.


*Footnote

*Anthropogenic GHG emissions are the cause of the recent rapid global temperature rise but their relationship with temperature rise is not a simple one. The underlying science linking global temperature rise to GHG concentrations is couched in terms of probability not certainty. The climate system is complex and highly variable due to both natural processes and to human induced changes, and is not now in thermal equilibrium. In addition to the known causes of the global warming (anthropogenic GHG), the earth's energy balance is also influenced by uncertainties in, for example, the thermal storage of oceans, changes in albedo as ice sheets disintegrate, the release of methane as permafrost melts, and these effects may be subject to time lags.

Climate Change Political Essentials for COP15 Copenhagen

Is a further political essential for Copenhagen language which does not perpetuate the developing/developed distinction, but speaks in terms of high, medium or low GHG emitters?

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCCC considers that the detail of a new climate change treaty will not be finalised at COP15 in Copenhagen in December, and most people would agree with him. He suggests, however, that agreement on 'four political essentials' at the meeting will signal success, with detail being added to the new treaty later. Meaningful answers to the following questions make up those political essentials -

• What GHG emissions targets industrialised countries will commit to?
• What limits to emissions growth are major developing countries (e.g. China and India) willing to undertake?
• How will help for developing countries be financed for both emissions reduction and climate change adaptation?
• How will such money be managed?

The language of 'four political essentials' is carefully chosen but the key issue is 'how much?'. How many tonnes CO2e emissions reduction can the world achieve over the new commitment period? How many dollars will wealthier nations be willing to pay for this?

China is now the world's largest emitter of GHG but has made efforts to bring renewable energy projects on stream, decommission older fossil fuel plant, and develop a National Climate Change Program. Despite this there is reluctance to commit to quantified emissions reduction targets (see for example Xie Zhenhua). China is currently adopting a position that maintains the developed/developing country divide which is part of the ethos and language of the Kyoto Protocol, rather than admitting that it is now the leader of the select group of the world's highest GHG emitting nations.

Under Kyoto and Bali developed countries take on 'quantified emissions limitations targets' but developing countries undertake 'actions'. This divide is perpetuated in the language of De Boer's 'four essentials'. India, also a significant GHG emitter, has already said that it will not accept emissions targets.

Both China and India are pressing for 'developed' countries to take on substantial GHG limitation targets (25-40% by 2020) and to supply finance for mitigation to help 'developing' countries who will then take 'nationally appropriate mitigation actions'. However both of these developing countries seem reluctant to acknowledge that the burning issue is not categorisation of countries as developed/developing but the need for rapid reduction of global GHG emissions in tonnage terms in the interests of all.

A few percentage points reduction in GHG emissions per year from one of the countries with the highest emissions, achieves far more than all the efforts of tens of smaller low GHG emission countries.

It is time to ask whether new language or new categories are needed to replace 'developed/developing/less developed' in the context of climate change. Maybe countries considering themselves as 'high, moderate, and low GHG emitting countries' with commensurate responsibilities, would refocus the debate and give more prominence to the fundamental issue - that the world must reduce its GHG emissions substantially and as speedily as possible.

All countries should contribute according to their varying capabilities but those countries with high GHG emissions are in the best position to make a real difference.

Should new language be a further political essential for Copenhagen?

blogclimate@gmail.com