Full feedLeaked documents prove current climate offers are crap
With the Copenhagen talks going nowhere fast, a leaked document (pdf) has caused some excitement here in the Greenpeace office and throughout the campaigning fraternity here in the Danish capital. Actually, that's probably an understatement, and Greenpeace ED Kumi is calling this "the single most important piece of paper in the world today".
What's worth such claims? The document, dated this Tuesday 15 December, is a UN memo analysing the pledges made by developed nations and some others in the run-up to Copenhagen. From this information they've calculated that if that's all that comes out of the deal tomorrow, we're on track for global temperatures rises of around 3C.
Bad as that is in itself, it completely rubbishes claims by leaders around the world that they're committed to reducing emissions so temperatures don't exceed 2C. And during the talks, many developing countries have been saying that temperatures should not be allowed to rise by more than 1.5C, requiring an even bigger effort to get emissions down.
So behind closed doors, it looks like the UN is admitting that the deals currently being offered are going to push us straight down the road to catastrophic climate change. But as George Monbiot said to an audience of bloggers and activists last night, the term 'climate change' is like calling a foreign invasion 'receiving unexpected visitors'; maybe 'climate breakdown' is more appropriate and this paper suggests that's the way we're heading.
Unless, that is, the heads of state get a grip on the situation and make it a FAB deal - fair, ambitious and legally binding - tomorrow. More on Desmog and the Guardian.
Comments
This 'leaked' document of uncertain origin and credibility shows a fundamental misinterpretation of the relationship between annual emissions of greenhouse gases and their potential impacts on global average temperature. Although the document appears to draw on analyses carried out by the Grantham Research Institute, it reaches false conclusions about the science of emissions reductions.
It is clear that current intentions on emissions reductions for 2020 are still short by a few billion tonnes of a target for global emissions of 44 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases. However this does not mean we would be on a path to a temperature rise of 3°C. In fact, current ambitions would still be consistent with a global emissions pathway offering a 50 per cent chance of avoiding a temperature rise of more than 2°C, but would require steeper reductions after 2020, which are likely to be more costly, to well below 35 billion tonnes in 2030 and well below 20 billion tonnes in 2050.
These pathways would result in a probability of no more than about 10 per cent of exceeding a temperature rise of 3°C and would mean that atmospheric concentrations would peak at about 500 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent before declining eventually to below 450 parts per million. More detailed analyses of the science than is contained in this ‘leaked’ document can be found in reports published on the website of the Grantham Research Institute (http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham).
Fortunately most delegates appear to have access to more robust analysis than is contained in this ‘leaked’ document.
Posted by: Bob Ward | December 17, 2009 10:31 PM
Terrible, terrible news.
Posted by: Karen Uyeno | December 18, 2009 3:07 AM
Bob Ward clearly has a more expert understanding of the data than most. However it seems to me as a non-climate-specialist that if agreement cannot be reached now it will be even more difficult to agree more stringent measures in 2020, so the projections of a 3degC rise seem reasonable to me.
Posted by: peasantfarmer | December 18, 2009 6:32 PM