Bill McKibben has a longish, insightful, and disturbing piece up at HuffPo, Why Politics-As-Usual May Mean the End of Civilization, that deserves your attention. I can’t do it justice with pulled quotes, but let me give you just a couple and encourage you to click through and read it all.

Moving by increments: it frustrates the hell out of many of us, and sometimes it’s truly disastrous. (I just watched Bill Moyers’ amazing recent broadcast of the LBJ tapes in the run-up to the full-scale escalation of the Vietnam War, where the president and his advisors just kept moving the numbers up a twitch at a time until we were neck deep in the Big Muddy.) Usually, however, incrementalism, whatever you think of it, lends a kind of stability to the conduct of our affairs — often it has a way of setting the stage for the next move.

When it comes to global warming, however, this is precisely why we’re headed off a cliff, why the Copenhagen talks that open this week, almost no matter what happens, will be a disaster. Because climate change is not like any other issue we’ve ever dealt with. Because the adversary here is not Republicans, or socialists, or deficits, or taxes, or misogyny, or racism, or any of the problems we normally face — adversaries that can change over time, or be worn down, or disproved, or cast off. The adversary here is physics.

Climate Change as Just Another Political Problem

Physics has set an immutable bottom line on life as we know it on this planet. For two years now, we’ve been aware of just what that bottom line is: the NASA team headed by James Hansen gave it to us first. Any value for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible “with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” That bottom line won’t change: above 350 and, sooner or later, the ice caps melt, sea levels rise, hydrological cycles are thrown off kilter, and so on.

Physics has set an immutable bottom line on life as we know it on this planet. For two years now, we’ve been aware of just what that bottom line is: the NASA team headed by James Hansen gave it to us first. Any value for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible “with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” That bottom line won’t change: above 350 and, sooner or later, the ice caps melt, sea levels rise, hydrological cycles are thrown off kilter, and so on.

And here’s the thing: physics doesn’t just impose a bottom line, it imposes a time limit. This is like no other challenge we face because every year we don’t deal with it, it gets much, much worse, and then, at a certain point, it becomes insoluble — because, for instance, thawing permafrost in the Arctic releases so much methane into the atmosphere that we’re never able to get back into the safe zone. Even if, at that point, the U.S. Congress and the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee were to ban all cars and power plants, it would be too late.

…

So here’s the thing: When Barack Obama goes to Copenhagen, he will treat global warming as another political problem, offering a promise of something like a 17% cut in our greenhouse gas emissions from their 2005 levels by 2020. This works out to a 4% cut from 1990 levels, the standard baseline for measurement, and yet scientists have calculated that the major industrialized nations need to cut their emissions by 40% to have any hope of getting us on a path back towards safety.

…

Meanwhile, the Chinese are apparently prepared to offer a 40% reduction in the “energy intensity” of their economy by 2020. In other words, they claim they’ll then be using 40% less energy to make each yuan worth of stuff they ship off to WalMart. Which is better than not doing it, but more or less what the experts think would happen anyway as China’s economy naturally becomes more high-tech and efficient. It’s at best a minor stretch from “business as usual.”

…

They’ll sign some kind of paper in Denmark — that became all but certain on Friday night when Obama announced he’d jet in for the meeting’s close. European leaders and some environmental groups may then call it a “qualified success,” and on we will go through more years of negotiation. In the meantime, physics will continue to operate, permafrost will continue to thaw, sea ice to melt, drought to spread.

It’s like nothing we’ve ever faced before — and we’re facing it as if it’s just like everything else. That’s the problem.

Even though I normally agree very strongly with McKibben, and I think he’s written a nearly perfect description of the political aspect of climate situation, I’m not as pessimistic as he is about what Copenhagen will produce. My gut instinct is that it will effectively boil down to, “We’re still talking. See you next December in Mexico City, possibly sooner.”

In those moments when I allow myself to ponder a more perfect world, I imagine a place where people have more respect for science and scientists, possess a basic understanding of the scientific process, and understand the numbers behind many of the problems we face today, including most prominently peak oil and climate change. Oh, and one more thing: I wish more people understood at a visceral level that we don’t live at the “center of a kind and loving universe”, as the saying goes, but in a cold, hostile universe that’s infinitely indifferent to our needs, wants, and desires. We can recognize that coldest of facts and take appropriate action in our own self-interest, or we can try to make reality behave more conveniently and bend to our will.

That’s not just delusional, it’s suicidal.

McKibben also links to the press release, COPENHAGEN CLIMATE DEAL HEADED FOR 3.5°C GLOBAL WARMING AND CLOSE T0 800 PPM CO2 EQUIVALENT GHG CONCENTRATIONS, quoted in its entirety (emphasis added):

A sobering new assessment by the “Climate Action Tracker” of the emission commitments and pledges put forward by industrialized and developing countries for the Copenhagen climate negotiations shows that the world is headed for a global warming of well over 3oC by 2100. Carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be over 650 ppm, with total GHG concentrations close to 800 ppm CO2 equivalent.

“The pledges on the table will not halt emissions growth before 2040, let alone by 2015 as indicated by the IPCC and are far from halving emissions by 2050, as has been called for by the G8. Instead global emissions are likely to be nearly double 1990 levels by 2040 based on present pledges”, said Dr Niklas Höhne of Ecofys.

“In 2020 we project total GHG emissions to be around 55 billion tonnes CO2 equivalent per year from all sources, a reduction of about 3 billion tonnes compared to business as usual. In ten years from now global emissions will already have to be well below current levels of about 46 billion tonnes (in 2008) to have much chance of meeting temperature goals such as 2°C, as called for by the major emitters globally, or below 1.5°C as put forward by the Small Island States and Least Developed Countries as essential for their survival”, said Dr (h.c.) Bill Hare of Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

“After accounting for the new position of Russia, the announcement of President Obama of a US emission reduction pledge for Copenhagen, the developed country emission reductions as a whole are currently projected to be 13-19% below 1990 levels by 2020. However the proposed forest credits these countries want would degrade this by about 5% with the effective reductions in industrial GHG emissions being 8-14% below 1990 levels by 2020. The low reduction target (8%) is unconditional for most countries and the highest reduction target (14%) is linked by most countries to a strong agreement in Copenhagen”, said Dr. Michiel Schaeffer of Climate Analytics.

Around 25-40% reductions by industrialized countries by 2020 from 1990 GHG emissions levels are described as necessary by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Recent announcements such as the Chinese carbon intensity reduction target for 2020, and the Korean emission goals for 2020 and 2050, are very important and useful. However the overall effect on greenhouse gas emissions (excluding deforestation) is disappointing; with overall developing country emissions projected to be close to, or significantly above, the IPCC range for 2020” said Dr Niklas Höhne of Ecofys.

“Faster economic growth than expected, particularly combined with slower improvements in carbon intensity in China explain part of this. China has ambitious policies on energy efficiency and renewable energy, but the new international target falls short of that ambition. A reduction from “business as usual emissions” by the developing countries as a group is needed in 2020 of 15-30% is needed to limit global warming to 2°C or even lower.

“On deforestation, we have accounted for the announcement of Brazil and of Indonesia which taken together would reduce deforestation emissions globally by about 40% from recent levels by 2020 (or about the same from estimated 1990 deforestation emissions), which is a very important contribution” said Dr Michiel Schaeffer.

“With no concrete pledges on the table for international aviation and marine CO2 emissions these are projected to grow to over double 1990 levels in 2020, reaching about 1.8 billion tonnes per year, and to nearly 4 times 1990 levels in 2050, about 3 billion tonnes per year” said Dr Niklas Höhne of Ecofys.

“From these numbers, there is at least a one in four chance of exceeding a warming of 4°C”, said Dr. (h.c.) Hare.

The Climate Action Tracker reveals major differences between the ambition levels of countries when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the lead are the Maldives and Costa Rica, which have proposed to become climate-neutral by around 2020. At the high end of the scale are Norway, Japan and Brazil, which are proposing to reduce their emissions significantly. In the “medium” range are developing countries such as India, Indonesia, Mexico and South Korea, who propose to reduce the growth of their emissions by the 2020s. The EU is a special case, in that its unconditional commitment is rated “inadequate”. However, if it’s 30% reduction target were to be adopted, the EU would move into the “medium” range and very close to “sufficient”. China has moved down a category, because it’s recently announced target falls short of the ambition level that we had expected from the implementation of the current national policies. Between the middle and the bottom of the scale is the United States, whose recently proposed actions are “inadequate”, i.e. they do not fall within the range that is needed to keep global warming within lower limits. At the very bottom end of the scale are countries that have yet to propose substantial action beyond “business as usual”. These include Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

Note for the editor

The web-based based climate policy assessment system “Climate Action Tracker” was developed by Ecofys, Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). It provides a picture of each country’s proposed commitments and actions and how these contribute to total greenhouse gas emission reductions globally.

The Climate Action Tracker enables the public to track the emission commitments and actions of countries. The website provides an up-to-date assessment of individual country pledges about greenhouse gas emission reductions. It also plots the consequences for the global climate of commitments and actions made ahead of and during the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

The Climate Action Tracker shows that much greater transparency is needed when it comes to targets and actions proposed by countries. For developed countries, accounting for forests and land-use change significantly degrades the overall stringency of the targets. For developing countries climate plans often lack calculations of the resulting impact on emissions.

You can find the Climate Action Tracker at www.climateactiontracker.org. Ecofys and Climate Analytics are both research organizations that specialize in energy and climate-related issues.

More information

Ecofys
Yvonne Kettmann
+49 221 270 70 110
climateactiontracker@ecofys.com

So who hacked the e-mails that resulted in the Swifthack mess? Some people in uncomfortably high places are saying it was the Russian secret service: Climategate: Russian secret service blamed for hack.

The article mentions potential motivations, but overlooks one of the most immediate and biggest ones: Russia is the world’s leading oil exporter.

And what would a roundup be without something on water? Try this: Copenhagen climate summit: Nearly half the world will suffer from water shortages ‘within 30 years’:

Global leaders gathering at the Copenhagen climate change summit urgently need to address the fact that 40pc of the world will suffer from water shortages within 30 years, according to the chief executive of Suez Environnement, Europe’s second biggest water company.

Jean-Louis Chaussade, who runs the owner of Bristol Water and Sita UK, the waste management giant, said Australia, the south-west US and Spain would be among the developed countries with inadequate water to meet demand.

Out of the developing areas, the Middle East, North Africa, China and India, would not have enough water to feed their populations or meet agricultural needs.


Visit Lou's Graphs Page.

TCOE is on Twitter, too


Link to original post