Towards COP21

[emordnilap]

Uruguay should be star of the show at Paris.

renewables provide 94.5% of the country’s electricity, prices are lower than in the past relative to inflation. There are also fewer power cuts because a diverse energy mix means greater resilience to droughts.

[clv101]

My fear/expectation is that COP21 will be hailed as a 'success'. But, all that will mean is a convenient set of words on paper. The 'failure' will be in the physical world which won't conform to what will have been committed to.

The fact some are still even talking about 1.5C is frankly daft. We need to accept that the world will warm by more than 1.5C with all the well understood implications. The fact that we will lose some small island states should/could be a powerful catalyst for action, but no, some are still suggesting we can mitigate.

EDIT: One other thing that's struck me watching the speeches is how delegates keeping biging themselves up. Suggesting that they hold the fate of the world in their hands, etc. I think our leaders are significantly exaggerating their influence. Getting billions of people to significantly change their behaviour (and continue voting for you) is a far harder challenge than agreeing the text.

[emordnilap]

Our 'leader' of Ireland gave a thoroughly embarrassing speech where he (unwittingly) acknowledged livestock agriculture as being the biggest culprit in the emissions table, when he more or less said we're going to tackle climate change but not at the expense of our farmers.

One of the hidden benefits of TEQs/C&S would be to bypass fools.

[biffvernon]

Article 2
1. The purpose of this Agreement is to further implement the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2
through enhanced action, cooperation and support, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to
eradicate poverty, so as to:
(a) Hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C, recognizing that this would significantly reduce
risks and impacts of climate change;
(b) Increase the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;
(d) Make finance flows consistent with a pathway towards such low greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient development.

This is the new draft - no square brackets in this section that neatly fudges the 2° or 1.5° issue.

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/da02.pdf

[clv101]

I agree with much of this post:
1.5C, or How to Torpedo a Climate Deal and Coming Out Looking Good

In my opinion talk of 1.5C is a mistake at this stage.

[kenneal - lagger]

The small island nations know that the developed world is offering them 2C while thinking about 3C or not doing anything at all. So asking for 1.5C in the hope that they get 2C is probably what they are doing. Even at 2C they are stuffed as that will lock them into continued sea level rise with the latest science pointing to a possible 2m sea level rise in 10 years.

[clv101]

The small island nations know that the developed world is offering them 2C while thinking about 3C or not doing anything at all. So asking for 1.5C in the hope that they get 2C is probably what they are doing. Even at 2C they are stuffed as that will lock them into continued sea level rise with the latest science pointing to a possible 2m sea level rise in 10 years.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'latest science', but we should be clear that the scientific evidence available today absolutely does not point to even the possibility of 2m SLR in 10 years!

[biffvernon]

The islands' problem is really complicated; it's not just global average sea level rise. There's local changes caused by El Niño/La Nina, beach erosion because of stormier weather, beach erosion through people poor enough to need to dig up materials, corals not growing so fast with warmer water and lower pH, subsidence of volcanic islands outpacing coral growth etc. etc.

Some of the islands are doomed whatever. But don't let that stop them screwing what they can from us rich folk who caused much of the problem.

[kenneal - lagger]

[quote="clv101"]I'm not sure what you mean by 'latest science', but we should be clear that the scientific evi ... NASA Says
Huffington Post - 27/07/15 - Disastrous Sea Level Rise Is an Issue for Today's Public -- Not Next Millennium's, Dr James Hansen

The discussion of Hansen's paper is available here

This response refers to the historical context of the hypothesis. It downloads as a pdf.

[biffvernon]

Environment and development groups have condemned the final text released on what is supposed to be the final day of negotiations at the UN climate talks in Paris.

Nick Dearden, the director of Global Justice Now said:

“It’s outrageous that the deal that’s on the table is being spun as a success when it undermines the rights of the world’s most vulnerable communities and has almost nothing binding to ensure a safe and liveable climate for future generations. In fact the deal as it stands in the context of INDCs that have been submitted sets us firmly on the path to a devastating three degrees of global warming.

“Years ago it was the brinksmanship of the USA that lead to the Kyoto Protocol becoming a toothless and ineffective agreement, which they didn’t even ratify. History has repeated itself in Paris, as the USA, with the support of the EU and the other rich nations, have ensured that the most important parts of the treaty are either stripped out of the text entirely, or watered down to the point of meaninglessness. Critical issues such as binding emissions reductions, legal responsibilities for loss and damage, and the recognition of human rights are all conspicuously absent from the main body of the text.

People are taking to the streets of Paris today with a mixture of anger and determination. Anger that our elected leaders have yet again put short-term corporate interests ahead of the most urgent crisis that humanity is facing. And determination that people and communities will continue to take the lead ahead of politicians on climate action, by taking on the fossil fuel industry, by fighting climate-trashing free trade deals and pushing for a just transition to a low-carbon economy.”

Oscar Reyes, climate policy analyst, Institute for Policy Studies said:

“While rich countries have been talking up their 'ambition', the reality is that big polluters like the United States are promising climate pollution cuts that amount to only a fifth of what we should be doing.“Rich countries have pushed a bad deal that could help them avoid their responsibility to pay for the effects of climate change. The Paris agreement is shaping up to shift ever more of the responsibility for addressing climate change onto some of the world’s poorest people, who did the least to cause climate change in the first place.”

http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/20 ... enerations

[clv101]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'latest science', but we should be clear that the scientific evi ... NASA Says

Yes, absolutely not 2m in 10 years.

“With future warming, we may lock ourselves into multiple-meter sea level rise” over the coming centuries, says Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “We're talking about 6 meters—18 feet—and higher of sea level rise. Sea level rise might rise half a meter per century, or several meters per century. We just don't know.”

Huffington Post - 27/07/15 - Disastrous Sea Level Rise Is an Issue for Today's Public -- Not Next Millennium's, Dr James Hansen

This is just discussing that paper...

The discussion of Hansen's paper is available here

This response refers to the historical context of the hypothesis. It downloads as a pdf.

I think we've discussed this paper before. It is an outlier in the literature, in fact it hasn't yet been accepted so it really can't be considered as part of the scientific literature yet. If one wants to appeal to the authority of 'the science', one must not lean heavily on this one paper. Sure, promote these findings if you agree with them but don't (yet) give them the legitimacy of describing these results as the 'latest science'.

There has been a lot of work on sea level rise recently. This table, also discussed at COP21, accurately reflects our best understanding of 'worst case' SLR this century:

[kenneal - lagger]

Given that all the targets and milestones set in IPCC and related papers in the past have been exceeded by a large margin I can see where Hanson is coming from. Given that the Paris talks are locking us into temperature rise and we already have extensive ice loss and it is accelerating the upper limits set are most likely to be the ones that are achieved or exceeded.

Scientists are not telling politicians a sufficiently horrifying story to get them to do anything is what Hanson is saying and I agree with him.

[clv101]

I've absolutely no problem with you promoting Hansen's view. What's wrong is to describe it as 'the science'. Hansen was wrong to promote his paper so hard before review in my opinion. He's standing on the respectability of 'the science' platform before his latest work has earned it.

[johnhemming2]

I agree that it undermines science to exaggerate things.

[UndercoverElephant]

IMO

COP21 agreement is almost meaningless. It's not binding and nobody is going to stick to it. It's a total failure dressed up as a great success.

Please try to convince me otherwise...