4 wins we need to make the Paris climate talks a success

In just a few weeks, negotiators from nearly every country in the world will gather at a sprawling airfield outside Paris to secure a new international agreement on climate change.

The goal of the Paris gathering – known as the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP21 – is a verifiable accord that allows countries to make and meet commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Paris agreement can also establish the rules of the road for how countries monitor and report their emissions and reductions – so that the rest of the world knows that they are following through, and can hold accountable those who do not.

Of course, we already know that COP21 won’t solve everything.

For one, the targets that countries take on will not be binding under international law – something that would likely require approval by the U.S. Senate. In the current political climate, that appears unattainable for any treaty that needs implementing legislation, let alone one on climate change. 

The silver lining here is that non-binding commitments can actually encourage greater ambition and participation, both of which are essential to an effective international response to climate change.

But we also know that the Paris talks alone won’t deliver emission reductions needed to meet the long-term goal of keeping global temperatures from rising beyond 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – a widely agreed-upon objective, and a level that scientists believe would avert the most severe impacts of climate change.

Meeting that goal will require sustained ambition over time, well beyond the 2025 or 2030 horizon of the Paris commitments.

What Paris can do is to set the stage for the world to turn the corner on global emissions. That turning point comes when global emissions finally stop rising after climbing for centuries, level off and begin to fall.

This is why the commitments countries make in Paris are just the first step. Equally important is the framework the new climate agreement establishes for countries to report on their progress and ratchet up their ambitions over time.

Here are four wins we need to make COP21 a success in the short term:

• Robust commitments to reduce emissions, especially from top emitters such as the United States, the European Union, China, Brazil and India. So far, more than 150 countries, accounting for more than 90 percent of global emissions, have made pledges, known as “intended nationally determined contributions,” or INDCs.

• An agreement on measuring and reporting emissions. As my colleague Alex Hanafi, an attorney with Environmental Defense Fund’s delegation to Paris, recently noted: “When countries see that other countries are keeping their commitments, it will build confidence and trust.”

• An agreement to periodically strengthen pledges to reduce emissions. As technology advances, EDF and others are urging that emissions reduction plans be kept as stringent as possible. This, in turn, signals to the private sector that low-carbon development is a national priority.

• Commitments to the U.N. Green Climate Fund and other channels of assistance that help vulnerable nations make the transition to a low-carbon economy and manage the impacts of climate change. Wealthy countries pledged in 2009 to mobilize $100 billion a year from public and private sources by 2020 and Paris can help show that goal is within reach. 

Will countries continue to push for more funding, deeper cuts in emissions, and innovative policies that set us on the right course?

We see a number of signs pointing in the right direction. The challenge for the climate negotiators who will gather in Paris this month is to capitalize on that momentum – and start to make the turn toward climate safety.

krives November 11, 2015 - 10:07

Leave a comment

Add new comment

China carbon market: A game changer years in the making

Yes, China is serious about climate action. The nation of 1.4 billion – the world’s most populous and No. 1 greenhouse gas emitter – took a giant leap forward today when announcing it will roll out a national carbon market in 2017.

The cap-and-trade market will build on a series of successful pilot projects that Environmental Defense Fund helped design, using a proven market-based solution to tackle the greatest environmental and economic challenge of our time – global warming.

It also builds on the new cooperation on climate issues between the United States and China. Gone are the days when the two largest polluters used each other’s inaction as an excuse to delay cutting emissions.

After the joint climate announcement last year by Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping, a new dynamic of positive reinforcement has emerged. And the timing of China’s announcement today is crucial.

More than 190 countries meeting in Paris in December to try to reach a new international agreement on climate change.

While a United Nations agreement will provide the framework that allows countries to announce, implement and report on emissions targets, national policies such as those the U.S. and China have announced this year will be the main driver of climate action globally.

Having the world’s two largest emitters and largest economies not just taking steps to reduce emissions, but acting in close collaboration at the highest level of government, will raise ambition globally in Paris and beyond.

It will also help advance clean energy markets and the innovations needed to make such markets thrive. When the U.S. and China accelerate the adoption of clean and low-carbon technologies they send a powerful market signal to industry, investors and entrepreneurs.

Carbon market idea hatched in 1990s 

EDF has been working in China since 1991 and conducted the first voluntary carbon trades with a multinational company seeking to offset emissions from its operations in China.

The efforts built on a successful model the United States used to reduce acid rain, and later expanded into seven pilot projects for which our China team provided key technical assistance. The pilots now cover 250 million people and have reported a total reduction of more than 10 million metric tons of climate pollutions.

“We are learning from our carbon emission trading pilots,” Su Wei, China’s chief climate change negotiator, noted last week. “A market can turn challenges into opportunities.”

In addition to planning for a national market to reduce emissions from industry, policymakers are in the midst of developing a first-of-a-kind cap-and-trade system to rein in transportation emissions in the city of Shenzhen.

And just last week, leaders from major U.S. and Chinese cities and provinces announced plans to peak and mitigate emissions.

The momentum is growing internationally to address climate change. Today, we can finally say we’re on our way.

4 undeniable signs of climate progress krives September 25, 2015 - 02:56

Leave a comment

Add new comment

8 reasons for hope: Our top take-aways from Climate Week

My forecast had been for a Climate Week “on steroids” and that’s exactly what we got.

We saw the largest climate rally in history draw 400,000 people – up from the 250,000 we had initially hoped for – and then the United Nations Climate Summit, where 125 heads of state joined business and civic leaders to discuss ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Another highlight for the week was the growing momentum for putting a price on carbon. More than 1,000 businesses and investors, nearly 100 national, state, province and city governments, and more than 30 non-profit organizations called for expanding emissions trading and other policies that create market incentives for cutting pollution.

Could it be that we’re finally reaching the point of meaningful action on climate change? To find out, I asked colleagues at Environmental Defense Fund who participated in the Climate Summit for their key take-aways from the week.

Here’s their report:

1. PEOPLE’S CLIMATE MARCH

Eric Pooley, Sr. Vice President, Strategy and Communications: This march shot down, once and for all, the old canard that Americans “don’t care” about climate change. And it reminded me what an extremely big tent the coalition for climate action really is — with plenty of room for groups with vastly different views.

More than 1,000 EDF members and staff, plus 300 members of the Moms Clean Air Force, were proud to be marching alongside all kinds of people from all kinds of groups from all over the country. To win on climate, we need a strong outside game and a strong inside game. EDF is helping to build both.

2. METHANE EMISSIONS RISE TO THE TOP

Mark Brownstein, Associate Vice President, U.S. Climate and Energy: Methane is becoming a top priority in the fight against climate change. Last week, EDF helped to launch the Climate and Clean Air Coalition’s Oil & Gas Methane Partnership, which creates a framework for oil and gas companies to measure and reduce methane emissions and report their progress.

At the summit, I watched the chief executive of Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil company, turn to Fred Krupp to say that his company was interested in joining the six companies that already agreed to sign on. While the ultimate test of the partnership will be the reductions that it achieves, it has gotten off to a promising start.

3. COMMON GROUND ON FORESTS

Stephan Schwartzman, Senior Director, Tropical Forest Policy: One of the high points of the week, no doubt, came when 35 national and state governments, more than 60 non-profits and indigenous organizations, and 34 major corporations pledged to halve deforestation by 2020 – and to completely end the clearing of natural forests by 2030. EDF was proud to be part of the coalition that put the New York Declaration on Forests together.

4. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES GOT THE RECOGNITION THEY DESERVE

Christopher Meyer, Amazon Basin Outreach Manager: Indigenous groups from the major rain forest basins pledged to continue to conserve 400 million hectares under their control. Those 400 million hectares are important for cultural and biodiversity purposes globally, but they also hold an estimated 71 gigatons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 11 years of emissions from the United States.

I was honored to accompany Edwin Vasquez Campos of the Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin, and to watch him deliver a stirring speech to a room that included the leaders of Norway and Indonesia. It was the first time an indigenous leader was given such an opportunity at the U.N.

5. US-CHINA LEADERSHIP ON CLIMATE?

Fred Krupp, EDF President: On September 23, EDF hosted a meeting with Chinese government officials, who reiterated their plans for a national carbon market in China, and said they’re interested in working with the United States to combat climate change. Later that day, I heard President Obama speak at the United Nations General Assembly.

I was encouraged and inspired to hear him say that the U.S. and China, “as the two largest economies and emitters in the world … have a special responsibility to lead.”

6. CLIMATE-SMART AGRICULTURE – NO LONGER JUST A CATCH PHRASE

Richie Ahuja, Regional Director, Asia: After a three-year global effort involving a large number of diverse stakeholders, we finally launched the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture. Its purpose: To help the world figure out how to feed a growing population on a warming planet.

The alliance will use the latest technology and draw on the experience of farmers to improve livelihoods and build resilience – while at the same time cutting greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts. This is climate action that truly counts.

7. CORPORATIONS ARE ON BOARD

Ruben Lubowski, Chief Natural Resource Economist: One thing that made the Climate Summit unique was that it included corporate leaders, not just heads of state. In addition to signing the New York Declaration on Forests, chief executives of major global companies that buy and trade palm oil and other tropical commodities that drive deforestation – companies like Cargill, Unilever, and Wilmar – spoke strongly about their plans to change sourcing practices.

Already, companies accounting for about 60 percent of the world’s palm oil trade have made commitments to eliminate deforestation from their products. 

8. CALIFORNIA DOES IT AGAIN

Derek Walker, Associate Vice President, U.S. Climate and Energy: California has served as a proving ground for climate change policies that can be adapted by other jurisdictions, whether in the U.S. and abroad – and there’s more to come. My highlight for the week: when Gov. Jerry Brown said that California will set a post-2020 emissions limit and ratchet up its 33-percent renewable standard – already the nation’s top target.

California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols also told us that the state is preparing to develop rules on how to incorporate forest carbon credits into its carbon market – a key step toward reducing deforestation.

Anonymous September 29, 2014 - 02:09

See comments

Comments

Thanks for posting. This article is very interesting; it broadens our ideas for taking a meaningful action on climate change. That list is great.

Tom Loeza September 29, 2014 at 10:08 pm Add new comment

Why this Climate Summit may be different

On September 21, I marched with my wife, two daughters and more than 300,000 others in New York City to call for climate action. 

Working day in and day out tackling climate change as I do, there are times when the magnitude of this environmental challenge feels daunting: Emissions continue to increase and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere shows no signs of slowing down.

Watching hundreds of thousands of people march in the biggest climate rally to date renewed my optimism and belief that action is possible.

Action will also be the rallying cry at this week’s Climate Week and its centerpiece event, the United Nation’s Climate Summit. In fact, the most important and remarkable thing about the summit is that it’s not really about the U.N. at all – or, for that matter, about the next round of global climate talks it will lead in Paris in 2015.

Rather, the one-day summit is about what actions national and local governments, cities, intergovernmental organizations, businesses and civil society can take to get the ball rolling.

The September 23 conference will be a launching pad for new initiatives in key action areas where significant, immediate progress can be made with mitigating climate pollution.

Bold steps in the right direction

Consider four initiatives that Environmental Defense Fund has been involved with together with our partners from governments, international organizations, the private sector and civil society:

• A public-private partnership to address methane emissions from oil and gas production - the second largest manmade source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes about one third of the radiative forcing the world will experience over the next two decades from current emissions.

• A global alliance of governments, development banks, businesses, farmers’ organizations and civil society to promote “climate-smart” agriculture practices that increase food security, build resilience to climate change and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
• A coalition to curb emissions from deforestation that is forging a unified vision from three previously disparate threads: public policies to protect tropical forests and the communities that depend on them, results-based financing for countries and jurisdictions that reduce emissions from deforestation, and corporate commitments to zero deforestation in their commodity supply chains.
• A push to put a price on carbon. A growing number of governments, businesses and organizations are joining together to express support for policies that make a price on carbon a key step for achieving the limits on carbon pollution we need to avoid catastrophic climate change and put the world on a path to low-carbon prosperity.

These initiatives, which will be discussed during high-level sessions at the summit, are not panaceas and they’re not sufficient by themselves. Limiting methane emissions, for example, will ultimately require smart regulations by governments, something we at EDF are pressing for on the state and federal levels in the United States.

But initiatives like these can make an important contribution to climate action by showing what’s possible and help build broader momentum for more ambitious action - while securing valuable emissions reductions in the meantime.

Some of our efforts will fall short of expectations. Some will be home runs. And some will start small and grow over time.

The point now is that we need everyone on deck to tackle the biggest challenge of our lifetime. And that is exactly what U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had in mind when he called for the climate summit to be held in New York on the margins of the annual United Nations General Assembly.

“There is no Plan B for action,” he said after marching with us in New York on Sunday, “because there is no Planet B.”

We know we’re not going to solve climate change in one day. The Climate Summit is a beginning rather than the end as we seek to reverse the rise in global carbon emissions and turn the corner toward climate stability.

Help us secure a cleaner future Anonymous September 23, 2014 - 07:59

Leave a comment

Add new comment

3 takeaways from the California, Mexico climate agreement

If you are looking for a sign that momentum is growing on climate action, this week’s groundbreaking agreement between California and Mexico to cooperate on climate change is a good place to start.

Most of the agenda at the four-day gubernatorial event was what you would expect to find at a trade and investment mission: agreements to cooperate on education, immigration, investment, but the inclusion of serious talks on climate change was surprising and hopeful.

The most tangible impact of the collaboration will be seen in the technical cooperation, information sharing, and potential policy alignment that are envisioned in the climate change agreement. But this week’s pact also suggests three less tangible but no less important takeaways:

1. Combatting climate change is sound economic policy

The fact that the climate change agreement was one of a handful of issues highlighted on California Governor Jerry Brown’s trip underscores the increasing importance of climate change to economic growth.  The impacts of climate change in California and the United States are becoming increasingly apparent, and Mexico faces similar issues of rising temperatures, increasing wildfires, and extreme precipitation.

With the growing evidence that climate risk will bring significant economic costs in the near term, and that delay will drive up the costs of taking action, smart climate policy is increasingly a key component of sound economic policy.

At the same time, the agreement also highlights the enormous opportunities for smart policy to drive clean energy innovation and investment on both sides of the border.  California’s leadership on climate change has already helped to make it a world leader in clean technologies. For its part, Mexico is poised to tap its enormous potential in solar, wind, and geothermal energy to help drive economic growth and energy security.

2. Carbon pricing continues to gain traction

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed on Monday by Governor Brown and Rodolfo Lacy, Undersecretary of Mexico’s Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, highlights carbon pricing as one of the key issues for cooperation under the agreement. 

Both sides are already taking action in this area: California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) includes the world’s most comprehensive emission trading program for greenhouse gases, while Mexico has instituted a partial carbon tax on fossil fuels that represents an important initial step that could lay the groundwork for a more effective price on carbon in the coming years.

A price on carbon is a crucial policy tool to achieve the deep emissions reductions the world needs to avoid dangerous climate change. By ensuring that the true costs of climate pollution are reflected in the price of fossil fuels, and rewarding emissions reductions, carbon pricing ensures deployment of cost-effective climate solutions — and creates a powerful incentive to develop new technologies.

The agreement by California and Mexico adds another boost to the growing momentum on carbon pricing around the world. About 40 national and more than 20 sub-national jurisdictions, accounting for more than 22 percent emissions already have a price on carbon, according to the World Bank.

3. A new model for cooperation

The agreement between California and Mexico can provide a model for collaboration in the emerging “bottom-up” approach to climate change, in which national policies take center stage, rather than a “top-down” global agreement negotiated at the UN. Bilateral and regional cooperation will be all the more important in a bottom-up world, to foster greater ambition and give countries confidence that others are taking action as well.

California and Quebec have already linked their carbon markets. Now with carbon pricing a centerpiece of cooperation between California and Mexico, it does not seem too far-fetched to envision a “North American carbon market” emerging in the not-too-distant future.

California and Mexico face joint challenges from a changing climate. Together they can demonstrate to the world concrete progress on practical solutions to reduce carbon emissions, drive clean energy innovation and promote low-carbon prosperity.

Anonymous July 30, 2014 - 06:14

See comments

Comments

I am thrilled to learn of the progress between California and Mexico. Our governor leads the way, and I am so glad there is progress on both sides of the border. Thank you EDF for being such an important part of the carbon-tax discussion. I am proud to support both you and our governor!

Anne Logan August 1, 2014 at 4:26 pm Add new comment

New IEA report sets a road map to a cleaner energy future

sorbyrock/flickr

(This post originally appeared on Climate 411)

Today, the International Energy Agency released a special report of its World Energy Outlook, entitled Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map. The report is notable not only for its substantive conclusions – but for what it signifies.

First, the substance:

The report starts by emphasizing that energy-related CO2 emissions are a crucial driver of global warming, that they are increasing rapidly, and that as a result the world is not on target to keep concentrations of greenhouse gases below the level that would provide even a fifty-percent probability of limiting the increase in average global temperatures to two degrees – a commonly cited benchmark to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. Standard fare, perhaps – but noteworthy nonetheless coming from the world’s leading energy authority.

A road map toward a more secure future

The key finding of the report — what makes it required reading — is the analysis of what the IEA calls its “4-for-2˚C scenario.”

The IEA identifies a package of four policies that could keep the door open to 2 degrees through 2020 – at no net economic cost to any individual region or major country, and relying only on existing, widely available technologies:

1. Specific energy efficiency measures in transport, buildings, and industry (1.5 GT savings in 2020/49% of the total package)
2. Limiting construction and use of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants (640 MT/21%)
3. Minimizing methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production (550 MTCO2e/18%)
4. Accelerating the partial phaseout of fossil fuel subsidies (360 MT/12%)

The IEA estimates that these four measures would reduce energy-related GHG emissions by 3.1 GT CO2-eq in 2020, relative to IEA’s “New Policies” reference scenario – corresponding to 80% of the reduction required to be on a 2-degree path.

Take a look at this chart, from IEA’s report, that summarizes the policies:

Here’s a second chart, also from IEA’s report. This one makes the key point about no net economic costs:

Four policies, using widely available technologies, imposing no net economic cost on any individual region or major country, that put the world in the position to make the turn to climate safety.

That’s the headline.

The cost of delay

IEA’s report also discusses the vulnerability of the energy sector to climate change, and emphasizes that delaying climate action will drive up the costs of meeting a 2 degree target later. The report estimates that putting off action until 2020 would trim near-term investment by $1.5 trillion in the short run – but at the cost of requiring an additional $5 trillion to be spent in subsequent years. In present-value terms, using a 5% discount rate, delay doubles the cost of action: from $1.2 trillion to $2.3 trillion.

This is an argument that we at EDF — and others — have been making for some time. But it is a crucial one nonetheless – and the IEA analysis gives some added analytical weight to the argument.

Not an oil shock, but a climate shock

These findings are especially welcome coming from IEA, a world-respected authority on energy markets and policy that was founded to facilitate international coordination among oil-consuming countries. Indeed, the messenger may be nearly as important as the message. What launched the IEA was the 1973-4 oil crisis. Now, nearly forty years later, the IEA report makes clear that the real energy-related threat to economic prosperity is not an oil shock, but a climate shock.

Back to the big picture

To be sure, the four policies analyzed in this report won’t fully suffice to address climate change in the long run: indeed, much more ambition will be needed.

Under the “4-for-2˚C” scenario, the IEA estimates that world energy-related emissions will peak and start to decline before 2020 – but we’ll still need concerted action on a global scale to get greenhouse gas emissions onto a steepening downward trajectory.

Take a look at one more chart from IEA’s report:

Acknowledging this point, IEA’s report underscores the importance of continued innovation in low-carbon technologies in transport and power generation (including carbon capture and storage), and highlights the vital importance of a long-term carbon price.

Beyond the scope of the report, there’s much to be done outside the energy sector – in particular by curbing tropical deforestation, and promoting the spread of agricultural practices that can achieve the “triple win” of greater productivity, greater resilience to climate, and lower environmental impacts (including GHG emissions). And all of these efforts must be carried out in tandem with the overarching challenge of promoting broad-based economic prosperity around the globe, as President Jim Yong Kim of the World Bank has repeatedly emphasized.

But the bottom line is that one of the most hopeful publications on climate change you’ll read this year has come from the International Energy Agency, of all places. Here is a road map toward a cleaner, more secure future. Now it’s up to us to take it.

krives June 10, 2013 - 03:40 Comments

Yes, I support you for the better in the world
Best regards,
http://www.pospay.biz

PPOB June 11, 2013 at 3:57 am

The best way to mitigate CO2 expansion is with nuclear reactors--not the light water reactors currently in use--but Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR). MSRs were proven safe and economical by successful operation at Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1959-1965. They can even burn down existing nuclear waste. They lend themselves to mass production. With an aggressive development plan, it is possible to replace all fossil fuel plants in the world by mid-century. I urge the EDF to promote development and use of LFTRs.

HERSHEY JULIEN June 11, 2013 at 11:31 am

Nate Keohane seems to me to have great credentials regarding climate change,and the IEA as well.we need to move on with the program.First agenda divest in oil stocks,and subsidies

David kronner June 11, 2013 at 3:00 pm

its gonna be a though journey!
http://anthony-fitness.com

anthony June 11, 2013 at 5:05 pm

Oh yead! Yes, I support you for the better in the world
http://noithatducduong.com/cua-go/cua-go-tu-nhien/

Mr.Nguyen June 12, 2013 at 4:11 am

Cleaner Energy Future
Nice article.

Justin June 13, 2013 at 12:30 am

you are real helper for the new generation

Alina June 14, 2013 at 8:23 am

I am very happy to support you and I will always fallow your world.

see this June 14, 2013 at 9:56 am

Just one a side note: Carbon dioxide is the best-known greenhouse gas, it is certainly not the only one. On the contrary, nearly half of global warming is caused by super pollutants such as methane, tropospheric ozone, hydrofluorocarbons and black carbon. Sometimes I feel we pay way too much attention to CO2.

Dean F. June 14, 2013 at 10:10 pm

Clearly, CO2 emission must be reduced. Let's move this forward.

John Rider June 16, 2013 at 12:18 am

agrees that CO2 emissions growing rapidly, our generation will have a hard

AngieLaw June 16, 2013 at 10:25 am

Clearly, CO2 emission must be reduced. Let's move this forward.

sally June 17, 2013 at 5:01 am

Save Environment Cleaner Energy Future
great article.

AhadCh June 17, 2013 at 7:37 am Add new comment

 

takver/http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/3622617318/">flickr

The Economist had an interesting piece on climate science this week which is attracting some attention. The article reaffirmed, yet again, that greenhouse gases are changing our climate in dangerous ways. But it also pointed to a scientific puzzle: that warming may not have advanced in the last decade as much as current models predicted, given the amount of emissions the world has produced. 

My main take-away is that the article underscores the fundamental nature of climate change -- that we are creating dangerous uncertainties.  (As you can imagine, some of the usual suspects are using questions about the details of climate science to deny climate change entirely. Never mind that the Economist article is quite clear that the issues raised in no way alter the fact that greenhouse gas pollution is disrupting our climate.)

In fact, no one knows for sure how much damage we are doing through our large-scale changes to the natural world. To my mind, that uncertainty is a powerful reason for taking remedial action now  – not only because there are a range of actions that will pay off under virtually any probable scenario, but also because action now keeps open the option to do more later if the science warrants it.

We know there are dangerous climate disruptions coming. So, regardless of how quickly it gets hotter, we need to stop making investment decisions that make things worse, like building power plants that produce a lot of pollution. We need to base our decisions on the big scientific picture, which shows that climate is being changed by pollution, and not the evolving predictions of how much and how fast this is happening.

Of course, if the climate is warming a little more slowly than we thought, that would be great news.  Given that we haven’t yet implemented a comprehensive strategy to combat warming, slower warming would buy us time. But at best that’s a little like hearing “the earthquake that’s coming may only be a 6.7, not a 7.3” or “the disease may spread through the population a little more slowly than we thought.”

We need to be open to the possibility that the Economist is right.  Honest scientific inquiry should never rule out new ideas.  The experts at Climate Nexus, though, point to a few potential problems with the science in the piece.  They note that a growing number of studies have documented heat being redirected into the ocean instead of the atmosphere; and that the selection of a 15-year timeframe incorrectly compares current atmospheric temperatures with those of an anomalously warm El Niño period. They also raise the issue of ongoing research into aerosols (fine particulate matter in the atmosphere), which show it may be obscuring atmospheric warming we would otherwise see.

Being an academic by training, I can't help but add a few questions of my own. First, the article and the studies it draws on may be making too much out of what is a short and recent trend.  Using just the last ten years of climate data is probably misleading, since it is dominated by a few relatively cool years.  It still seems hard to believe that we can infer a lot about long-term equilibrium climate sensitivity from a handful of data points.  The longer-term trends are quite clear.

 Second, some of what is going on appears to be disagreement among different types of climate models.  A careful reading of the piece reveals that the low-end estimates of climate sensitivity are coming from one particular type of model (top-down or “energy balance” models), which are highly simplified and potentially influenced too much by recent data. The more complex bottom-up models tend to suggest higher sensitivities – that is, more warming. 

Third, as the article itself points out, the link between concentration and temperature rise is only part of the story.  Relative to projections of just a few years ago, emissions are increasing faster than expected in most of the world (even if they may be leveling off in the United States).  On the current trajectory, even if the climate sensitivity is “only” 2 degrees, we will still have more than 2 degrees of warming – getting well into the region where science suggests we will start to see significant adverse impacts on the climate system.  

Given that we are already seeing severe impacts (increased incidence of drought, extreme weather, etc.) linked to the warming observed so far, the effect of even modest temperature increases could be worse than we thought.  Indeed, even if the studies about climate sensitivity are correct, the implications for policy are not so clear-cut.  As the Economist article points out, actual policies lag well behind what we think is needed.  Even with a lower climate sensitivity, we would need to step up our policies – for example, by putting a price on carbon pollution, as the last paragraph of the article suggests we must do.

The article raises an interesting scientific question, which is always good.  But it is worrisome that some people are already ignoring the nuances of the piece and misusing it to confuse the public. The real message, as the article says, is that even if they’re right, it “does not mean the problem is going away.” I hope people take the time to read and digest the whole piece; it would be too bad if most readers walked away thinking that this means we don’t need to do anything about climate change.

Blog Category for Navigation: Climate