[Oz-envirolink] Analysis: How the climate drama unfolded in Bali
hugh spencer
hugh at austrop.org.au
Fri Dec 28 11:45:44 EST 2007
Hi all -
re-posted from Greenleap.
Hugh
............................
Dear Greenleapers,
Key extracts (without comment) from the New Scientist article are:
> The EU and many environmentalists claimed at the meeting that the
25 to 40 per cent plan was the recommendation of the IPCC, and that to
reject it was to reject the science. In fact the referenced pages do
not make such a recommendation. They simply say that cuts within that
range would likely be required to limit concentrations of greenhouse gases
in the air to the equivalent of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide.
They give equal prominence to two other targets - 550 and 650 ppm -
that require less stringent cuts.
Delegates repeatedly asserted that keeping atmospheric concentrations below
450 ppm would prevent global average air temperatures rising by more than 2
°C from pre-industrial levels, which is often seen as a threshold beyond
which dangerous climate change will occur. It might. But according to
studies presented in Bali by the UK's Met Office, there is only a 20 per
cent chance of 450 ppm delivering that.
Uncertainty about the climate's sensitivity to extra greenhouse gases is
still so great, said Vicky Pope of the Met Office, that 450 ppm could cause
warming of 4 °C or more (Graph link below) . The best that can be said is
that the significance of keeping below 2 °C is more a political construct
than a scientific fact.
Cheers, Philip
From:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19626353.900-
analysis-how-the-climate-drama-unfolded-in-bali.html
Analysis: How the climate drama unfolded in Bali
22 December 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Fred Pearce,
Nusa Dua,
Indonesia
THE Bali climate conference had everything, from beaches to the UN's
top climate diplomat fleeing the platform in tears. There were charges
that the science underpinning the event had been reduced to a footnote,
and even a rescue mission from the UN secretary general as the all-night
final session extended long into the following afternoon. To top it all, a
booed and humiliated US delegation was forced into a U-turn after being
unable to find a single supporter in the face of a vitriolic attack from
Papua New Guinea.
Between the tears and ultimatums, the conference may also have
ensured that both the US and China become fully engaged in
<http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12775-zero-emissions-needed
-to-avert-dangerous-warming.html> humanity's most pressing task of the
21st century - reining in climate change.
On the face of it, nothing happened that will immediately affect the
atmosphere. Almost 24 hours after the scheduled close, with ministers
already leaving for the airport, a deal was reached on the "Bali roadmap"
- a document setting the agenda for two years of negotiations that should
culminate in a Copenhagen protocol to govern global greenhouse gas
emissions after the Kyoto protocol lapses in 2012.
The key question is whether the roadmap will prevent dangerous
climate change. European nations wanted it to state a "destination" - a
target of emissions cuts by industrialised countries of between 25 and 40
per cent by 2020, and for total global emissions to peak within 15 years
and halve by 2050.
The US - in its one clear victory of the fortnight - joined with
Canada, Japan and Russia to veto this text, saying it prejudiced the
coming negotiations. They secured a compromise reference to the necessity
for "deep cuts", with a footnote mentioning several pages taken from a
recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describing
scenarios for reducing emissions.
Here the story gets murky, with the science repeatedly being taken
in vain. The EU and many environmentalists claimed at the meeting that the
25 to 40 per cent plan was the recommendation of the IPCC, and that to
reject it was to reject the science. In fact the referenced pages do not
make such a recommendation. They simply say that cuts within that range
would likely be required to limit concentrations of greenhouse gases in
the air to the equivalent of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide. They
give equal prominence to two other targets - 550 and 650 ppm - that
require less stringent cuts.
Most delegates left the meeting believing that the footnote embraces
a 450 ppm target. The Americans know better.
There is a further complication. Delegates repeatedly asserted that
keeping atmospheric concentrations below 450 ppm would prevent global
average air temperatures rising by more than 2 °C from pre-industrial
levels, which is often seen as a threshold beyond which dangerous climate
change will occur. It might. But according to studies presented in Bali by
the UK's Met Office, there is only a 20 per cent chance of 450 ppm
delivering that.
Uncertainty about the climate's sensitivity to extra greenhouse
gases is still so great, said Vicky Pope of the Met Office, that 450 ppm
could cause warming of 4 °C or more
<http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2635/26353901.jpg>
(Graph link) . The best that can be said is that the significance of
keeping below 2 °C is more a political construct than a scientific fact.
None of this detracts from the urgency of dramatically lowering
emissions of greenhouse gases. Once in the air, the lifetime of CO2 is
measured in centuries, so climate scientists in Bali argued that only
near-zero emissions by mid-century or soon after will begin to make the
world safe from climate change.
It is not an impossible target. Three nations publicly committed
themselves to bringing their emissions to zero: Norway, New Zealand and
Costa Rica. The last says it can get there by 2021.
This was the first UN climate conference at which countries talked
confidently about making emissions cuts on such a scale. They are being
pushed by the remorselessly alarming science, but also drawn by the
assurances of large corporations that such cuts are feasible. Germany last
week announced plans to cut its emissions by 40 per cent below 1990s
levels by 2020. "This is not altruism, the German economy will benefit
from the plans," said the environment minister.
Bali was also the first UN climate conference to take place without
a chorus of industrialists warning of economic doom if emissions are
corralled. Instead, many are demanding firm long-term emissions targets to
help them plan future investment. For them, the failure to enshrine a 25
to 40 per cent cut is a blow.
Bali was also the moment when large developing nations such as China
for the first time committed themselves to what the roadmap calls
"measurable, reportable and verifiable... mitigation actions". This did
not amount to pledging actual emissions cuts, but it was at least
divergence from business as usual.
This commitment, unthinkable only a couple of years ago, did not
happen easily. It nearly derailed the conference at the start of its
unscheduled final day. In return for their promise, developing countries
demanded that they also receive "measurable, reportable and verifiable"
help from the rich world, in the form of money and technology. The
European Union swiftly conceded the point, but a suspicious US blocked it.
Just a few hours before, a procedural cock-up had resulted in a
chastised and sleep-deprived Yvo de Boer - executive secretary of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change - leaving the platform in tears.
Then the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon entered to read the riot act and
demand a deal from bickering delegates. Coming after such a tense and
fractious morning, the US's one-nation attempted veto caused outrage.
It seemed set to wreck the deal. But then, in a moment of unscripted
high drama rarely seen at UN conferences, Papua New Guinea's head of
delegation Kevin Conrad rose above the barrage of appeals to the US
delegation and simply commanded them: "If you are not prepared to lead,
get out of the way." And they did. If the world finds a way to counter
climate change, that will be a moment for the history books.
The scale of global emissions cuts now regarded by scientists as
essential means that developing nations including China, India and Brazil
will need to curtail their emissions sooner rather than later. US delegate
Jim Connaughton put the emissions maths most succinctly.
Assuming even a conservative rate of global economic growth,
business-as- usual energy technologies will raise global CO2 emissions from
22 billion tonnes to 37 billion tonnes by 2050. Meeting the Bali
aspiration of halving global emissions will require cutting emissions to
11 billion tonnes. That is a reduction on business as usual of 26 billion
tonnes - more than current total emissions.
The scale of the task was so great that "even if developed countries
went to zero, it would still require major developing countries to halve
their [projected] emissions," Connaughton said.
One barely discussed element is that the Kyoto protocol appears to
have been consigned to the dustbin of history even before its main
provisions come into force in January. Nobody talks about a second round
of Kyoto targets any more. The Bali roadmap mentions the protocol only
once, noting that the new negotiations "shall be informed by... experience
in implementing the... Kyoto protocol".
This provides a face-saving way back into the climate fold for
Kyoto-refusenik, the US. Nobody is saying so, but it may also wipe the
slate clean for countries likely to fail their Kyoto targets. Canada in
particular is expected to have emissions 38 per cent above 1990 levels by
2010, rather than the promised 6 per cent cut. Moreover its government has
said that it will not, as required by the protocol, buy carbon offsets to
make up the difference.
Under the protocol, Canada faced swingeing penalties in a future
round of emissions targets. It may now escape them. Likewise Australia,
which finally signed up to the Kyoto protocol in Bali seemingly
unconcerned that it has no hope of even approaching the target it agreed
back in 1997.
Meanwhile the "Berlin Wall" within the Kyoto protocol, which divided
the list of industrialied nations with targets and the rest, has
disappeared. The roadmap text talks simply of developed and developing
nations, without defining them. De Boer says this creates greater
flexibility. It also creates new complications.
The one unquestioned promise in Bali was that negotiations on the
successor to the Kyoto protocol will be concluded in 2009. That could
prove the hardest thing of all to achieve.
From issue 2635 of New Scientist magazine, 22 December 2007, page
6-7
-------------------
Red alert
The Pandora's box has been opened. Considered too hot to handle in
Kyoto 10 years ago, deforestation - which causes a fifth of global CO2
emissions - was placed at the heart of the climate agenda in Bali.
Improved satellite monitoring now means that activities to prevent carbon
loss from forests can be better assessed, so the Bali conference included
talks on ways to reward countries that reduce their forest CO2 emissions -
perhaps by awarding carbon credits that can be traded on the burgeoning
carbon market.
Many see the scheme - called REDD, for Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation - as an early way for developing
countries to show their commitment to fighting climate change. But in the
conference corridors, concerns were raised about how REDD will work. Who
will get the money? Will the measures result in forest dwellers being
evicted from their homes? Will loggers simply pocket the cash for
protecting one area, while moving their operations elsewhere?
Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change last year
highlighted forest conservation as the cheapest way of keeping large
amounts of CO2 out of the air. But the fear is that schemes to protect
forests will win so many carbon credits that they will flood the global
carbon market - triggering a price collapse that will undermine the market
incentives for reducing emissions in other areas, like energy.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner
at http://lists.altnews.com.au/MailScanner.html ,
and is believed to be clean.
More information about the Oz-envirolink
mailing list