[Oz-envirolink] Government carbon pollution target announcement Monday

[hugh spencer]

Quote "The government does not understand that you can't negotaite with the
laws of physics and chemistry and biology that determine our climate
system."




Climate Action Centre
Climate alert #1
12 December 2008

Government carbon pollution target announcement Monday

By now the government has set its 2020 target and if reports are true the
target will lead to disaster. It is absolutely crucial that everyone
understand how appalling the decision is and that it is roundly condemned,
as this can form a platform on which to campaign for stronger and realistic
targets next year.

On Monday, it seems the government will announce a 2020 target of a
reduction of 10% (+/-5) and may even be audacious/hypocritical enough to
also announce a long-term aspirational target of limiting greenhouse gases
to 450ppm. ÝThe two are staggeringly inconsistent.

 Please read this email and take the following three actions:

1. Ring your MP and Senators and tell them these targets are unacceptable
and a disaster for Australia and the world. You can find their phone number
by searching here www.aph.gov.au/whoswho/index.htm

2. Join the step-ins planned for next week that will take a community voice
to the offices of MPs
http://stepitupaustralia.wordpress.com/

If you cant find one in your state or area give us a call 03 9639 3660 or
email info at climateactioncentre.org

3. Call Talk Back Radio and write letters to newspapers about the targets.
There are talking points below.

 Regards

 Damien Lawson and David Spratt

Talking points

*** 10% by Australia will likely result in global increases in emissions by
2020

If high per-capita emission, Kyoto annex 1 nations like Australia commit to
only 10% reduction by 2020, the developing world will reasonably argue that
their emissions can continue to increase, given the historic carbon debt on
the Annex 1 nations. ÝThus globally emissions are likely to increase.

*** 10% will kill Australia's iconic places and much more as well

 Australia's 10% target if adopted globally will ensure that the planet
passes tipping points for large sea-level rises, temperatures rises of more
than 2 degrees and ocean acidification that will destroy the Great Barrier
Reef and kill Kakadu, as well as be a disaster for hundreds of millions of
people.

*** 10% will undermine global climate talks

 Australia's position will undermine all the small gains that have been
made internationally, with the Europeans already starting to split on their
target of 30% by 2020.

***Ý10% by 2020 is not a 450ppm target

According to a recent paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, to stabilise at a maximum of 450 parts per million, carbon dioxide
equivalent (ppmCO2e) global emissions of greenhouse gases from the parts of
the climate system we can control need to peak by 2015, then fall by 6-8% a
year.  This is far removed >from Australia's commitment.

(Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows, 2008. Reframing the climate change
challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society A. Published online. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0138
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/journal_papers/fulltext.pdf)

But increasing carbon feedbacks show that the Anderson and Bows scenario
may be too optimistic even for 450ppm.ÝA recent paper Ýshows that the extra
warming caused by disappearing sea ice penetrates 1500km inland, covering
almost the entire region of continuous permafrost. Arctic permafrost
contains twice as much carbon as the entire global atmosphere. It remains
safe for as long as the ground stays frozen. But the melting has begun.


********  Methane gushers are now gassing out of some places with such
force that they keep the water open in Arctic lakes, through the winter.

(David M. Lawrence et al., 2008. Accelerated Arctic land warming and
permafrost degradationÝduring rapid sea ice loss. Geophysical Research
Letters, Vol. 35, 11506. doi:10.1029/2008GL033985;ÝEdward A. G. Schuur et
al, September 2008. Vulnerability of permafrost carbon to climate change:
implications for the global carbon cycle. Bioscience, Vol. 58:701-714).

*** and 450ppm is not even a 2-degree target

450ppm, according to the Hadley Centre research quoted by Stern in his 2006
report, has a 78% chance of exceeding 2C, an 18% chance of exceeding 3C, a
3% chance of exceeding 4C and a 1% chance of exceeding 5C.

For summary of impacts of 1-5 degrees, see:
http://www.carbonequity.info/docs/3degrees.html

*** and of course 2 degrees is not a safe target either

ìWe have reached a point of planetary emergency...ÝElements of a perfect
storm, a global cataclysm, are assembled...Ýthe oft-stated goal to keep
global warming less than +2C (+3.6F) is a recipe for global disaster, not
salvation.î
NASAís Dr. James Hansen, testimony to US Congress, June 23, 2008

***ÝIf not 450ppm, what is a safe target?

Professor John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research in Germany: "It is a very sweeping argument, but nobody can
say for sure that 330ppm is safe," he said. "Perhaps it will not matter
whether we have 270ppm or 320ppm, but operating well outside the [historic]
realm of carbon dioxide concentrations is risky as long as we have not
fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen: "CO2
~300-325ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago"
in ""Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?",Ý
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874282300802010217Ý

At Posnan, 49 of the least developed countries have been advocating a
target of 350 ppm, as they know their countries will be devastated by
anything higher.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/4/104313/898/


***ÝThe laws of science aren't interested in political compromises and
steering "a balanced course"

 Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong will defend their disasterous targets by saying
they are been criticised by "both sides" of the debate and therefore they
have got it right.

But climate targets must be set according to the scientific imperatives,
and putting them through a political filter can only imperil the planet.
The government does not understand that you can't negotaite with the laws
of physics and chemistry and biology that determine our climate system.Ý

On ThursdayÝ11 DecemberÝKevin Rudd told theÝ7.30 Report: ìAnd I'm sure when
this [Government carbon pollution policy] is delivered, early next week,
we'll get attacked from the left, from the right, we'll get attacked by
various radical green groups saying that we haven't gone far enough because
we haven't closed down the coal industry by next Thursday ... We'll be
attacked from the far right and by various business groups, I suppose, and
certainly the Liberal Party, for doing anything at all. And we'll be
attacked by extreme green groups for not taking the most radical course of
action...ÝWe intend to steer a balanced course."

*** Appeal to scientists to speak out

 If you want to do more perhaps join this call below for scientists to make
the clear the danger and contradiction in the governments targets.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2008/12/11/calling-all-scientists-speak-now-or
-forever-hold-your-peace/


To sign on to continue to receive these alerts please send an email to
info at climateactioncentre.org

with ALERT in the subject heading