4 November 2015, New York Times, The Tough Realities of the Paris Climate Talks. In less than a month, delegates from more than 190 countries will convene in Paris to finalize a sweeping agreement intended to constrain human influence on the climate. But any post-meeting celebration will be tempered by two sobering scientific realities that will weaken the effectiveness of even the most ambitious emissions reduction plans that are being discussed. The first reality is that emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas of greatest concern, accumulate in the atmosphere and remain there for centuries as they are slowly absorbed by plants and the oceans. This means modest reductions in emissions will only delay the rise in atmospheric concentration but will not prevent it. Thus, even if global emissions could be reduced by a heroic average 20 percent from their “business as usual” course over the next 50 years, we would be delaying the projected doubling of the concentration by only 10 years, from 2065 to 2075. This is why drastic reductions would be needed to stabilize human influences on the climate at supposed “safe” levels. According to scenarios used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global annual per capita emissions would need to fall from today’s five metric tons to less than one ton by 2075, a level well below what any major country emits today and comparable to the emissions from such countries as Haiti, Yemen and Malawi. For comparison, current annual per capita emissions from the United States, Europe and China are, respectively, about 17, 7 and 6 tons. The second scientific reality, arising from peculiarities of the carbon dioxide molecule, is that the warming influence of the gas in the atmosphere changes less than proportionately as the concentration changes. As a result, small reductions will have progressively less influence on the climate as the atmospheric concentration increases. The practical implication of this slow logarithmic dependence is that eliminating a ton of emissions in the middle of the 21st century will exert only half of the cooling influence that it would have had in the middle of the 20th century. Read More here
Category Archives: PLEA Network
3 November 2015, Bloomberg View, What Economists Don’t Get About Climate Change. Economists tend to see climate change as a big optimization problem: Weigh the potential costs of future disasters against the benefits of fossil-fueled economic growth, and find a price of carbon that will balance the two. Unfortunately, it’s an illusory goal. The Cost of Carbon Consider, for example, a recent study by Yale University’s Kenneth Gillingham and colleagues. Using a collection of so-called “integrated” models of climate and the economy, they seek to get a better handle on how various uncertainties — in weather, population growth and technological development — might affect the price that policy makers should put on carbon. Their conclusion: No matter what happens, the optimal price in 2020 would probably be no more than about $50 per ton. The paper’s appearance may be timed to influence policy makers at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, which begins at the end of this month. It really shouldn’t, because it feigns certainty in areas where none is to be had. Granted, such integrated models include some realistic climate physics and economics. Yet their builders inevitably face crucial questions about which we know very little. For example, just how sensitive are global temperatures to the addition of further carbon dioxide? And how much economic damage can we expect from a temperature rise of, say, 2 degrees or 5 degrees? Read More here
1 November 2015, Common Dreams, ‘Absolute Crap’ But Brilliant: Corporate America’s Plan to ‘Misbehave Without Reproach. ‘Only in the senile, decrepit, and unbelievably corrupt modern version of the United States would this sickening decadence even be considered possible, let alone doable.’ An independent investigation by journalists featured in the New York Times on Sunday offers an in-depth look at the way American corporations have used the inclusion of “arbitration clauses” within consumer contracts to strategically circumvent judicial review of their behavior and immunize themselves from class action lawsuits –”realistically the only tool citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices.” “You can’t shoot someone or rob a bank and say ‘It’s OK, I have a contract.'” —Paul Wallis, Digital Journal. What the Times found was a pattern of legal dead ends for consumers seeking to find redress for perceived injustices due to various forms of corporate fraud and malpractice. Often buried deep within lengthy and difficult-to-read contracts that purchasers of products or services are forced to sign, legal experts say the injection of these arbitration clauses “have essentially disabled consumer challenges to practices like predatory lending, wage theft and discrimination.” As the newspaper reports: Read More here
30 October 2015, Carbon Brief, UN report: Climate pledges fall short of cheapest route to 2C limit. Low ambition in countries’ climate pledges means avoiding dangerous warming will be harder and more costly than it could have been, according to new UN analysis. Today’s synthesis report, from the UN’s climate body (UNFCCC), aggregates the 146Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) that had been received by 1 October. It says emissions in 2030 would exceed a cost-effective path to 2C, the internationally agreed safety limit. UNFCCC executive secretary Christiana Figueres said the pledges, if implemented, would reduce expected warming of 4-5C to around 2.7C. While the ambition is too low to avoid 2C, she added that current pledges are a “foundation on which even higher ambition can be built”. Carbon Brief looks at the numbers behind the UN’s INDC report and what they mean for 2C. Pile of pledges The UNFCCC has aggregated the impact of 146 INDCs, which together cover all developed nations, three quarters of developing nations and 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions. After the 1 October cut-off for the report, the pledge count has risen to 156, covering 92% of emissions. Of the 146 pledges assessed, 127 offer quantified targets to tackle emissions. Some 59 of these targets are set relative to business as usual emissions, while 31 set absolute goals. Another eight pledge to reduce emissions intensity and three offer peak emissions years. The pile of pledges to limit emissions has therefore more than doubled in size, the UNFCCC says, compared to the 61 parties that had previously made commitments for the years up to 2020. More than half of the INDCs say they will use, or are considering using market based mechanisms. The UNFCCC also breaks down parties’ priorities, as they appear in the INDCs (chart below). Read More here