- WaPo: Why are so many Americans confused about cli...
- Siberia's thawing permafrost fuels climate change
- Lamar Smith completely rebutted on his accusation ...
- Kevin Anderson, Nature: Duality in Climate Science...
- Stefan Rahmstorf, SMH: Australia must step up on e...
- Reduced river flows in Brazil, as global warming i...
- Extraordinary runoff from the Greenland Ice Sheet ...
- Peter Gleick, OpEd, LA Times: California must cap...
- California Attorney General Kamala Harris Urged t...
- 2015 shatters the temperature record as global war...
- EMAIL IN SUPPORT FROM BEN SANTER TO TOM KARL
- Daniel Ellsberg: #ExxonKnew Is the Best 'Thank You...
- Bernie Sanders: Climate change worse security thre...
- tamino: October 2015 a Scorcher! The hottest mont...
- Place to B, Paris: short message
- "COP-21 is ignoring huge danger": Press Release by...
- The G20 spent an average of $452 billion each year...
- Native Bees Foraging in Fields Are Exposed to Neon...
- Mark Hertsgaard: ExxonMobil’s Alleged Climate Chan...
- Global warming's fingerprints are all over recent ...
- Record-breaking temperature across the Globe, Nove...
- CREDO statement on rejection of Keystone XL
- OBAMA REJECTS KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE! Ranking Member...
- Global warming, increasing aridity and rapidly exp...
- Posts from October 2015
- ▼ November (26)
- ► 2014 (862)
- ► 2013 (1259)
- ► 2012 (1040)
- ► 2011 (2089)
- ► 2010 (1317)
- ► 2009 (1326)
- ► 2008 (510)
Monday, November 23, 2015
by Lisa Rein, The Washington Post, November 23, 2015
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Assuming concerted efforts to reduce emissions from all three sources, I base deforestation and land-use change emissions for the period 2011–2100 on RCP4.5 (http://go.nature.com/
dDeAWk), the IPCC’s most ambitious deforestation pathway to exclude net-negative land-use emissions. I therefore adopt a highly optimistic total deforestation budget of about 60Gt of CO2.
Process emissions from cement production must be considered separately. Industrialization throughout poorer nations and the construction of low-carbon infrastructures within industrialized nations will continue to drive rapid growth in process emissions, which currently run at about 7% per year (R. Andrew, personal communication and ref. 11). Although lower-carbon alternatives such as carbon capture and storage and the prudent use of cement may reduce some of this early growth (R. Andrew, personal communication and ref. 11), in the longer term, these emissions must be eliminated entirely. A provisional analysis, building on the latest process-emission trends (personal communications from both K. West and R. Andrew, and refs. 11,12), suggests process emissions from cement production could be constrained to around 150 Gt of CO2 from 2011 to their eradication later in the century.
Consequently, the remaining budget for energy-only emissions over the period 2015–2100, for a “likely” chance of staying below 2 °C, is about 650 Gt of CO2.
A carbon budget this tight suggests a profoundly more challenging time frame and rate of mitigation than that typically asserted by many within the scientific community. It demands a dramatic reversal of current trends in energy consumption and emissions growth: more than a fifth of the remaining budget has been emitted in just the past four years. To avoid exceeding 650 Gt, global mitigation rates must rapidly ratchet up to around 10% per year by 2025, continuing at such a rate towards the virtual elimination of CO2 from the energy system by 2050.
The severity of such cuts would probably exclude the use of fossil fuels, even with carbon capture and storage (CCS), as a dominant post-2050 energy source. Only if the life cycle carbon emissions of CCS could be reduced by an order of magnitude from those postulated for an efficiently operating gas-CCS power station (typically around 80 g CO2 per kilowatt-hour (13)), could fossil fuels play any significant role beyond 2050.
Delivering on such a 2 °C emission pathway cannot be reconciled with the repeated high-level claims that in transitioning to a low-carbon energy system “global economic growth would not be strongly affected” (2). Certainly it would be inappropriate to sacrifice improvements in the welfare of the global poor, including those within wealthier nations, for the sake of reducing carbon emissions.
But this only puts greater pressure on the lifestyles of the relatively small proportion of the globe’s population with higher emissions— pressure that cannot be massaged away through incremental escapism. With economic growth of 3% per year, the reduction in carbon intensity of global gross domestic product would need to be nearer 13% per year; higher still for wealthier industrialized nations, and higher yet again for those individuals with well above average carbon footprints (whether in industrial or industrializing nations).
A candid assessment
The IPCC’s Synthesis Report and the scientific framing of the mitigation challenge in terms of carbon budgets are important steps forward. As scientists, we must now leverage the clarity gained by the budget concept to combat the almost global-scale cognitive dissonance in acknowledging its quantitative implications. Yet, so far, we simply have not been prepared to accept the revolutionary implications of our own findings, and even when we do we are reluctant to voice such thoughts openly.
Instead, my long-standing engagement with many colleagues in science leaves me in no doubt that although they work diligently, often against a backdrop of organized skepticism, many are ultimately choosing to censor their own research. Explicit and quantitative carbon budgets provide a firm foundation on which policy makers and civil society can build a genuine low-carbon society. But the job of scientists remains pivotal. It is incumbent on our community to communicate our research clearly and candidly to those delivering on the climate goals established by civil society; to draw attention to inconsistencies, misunderstand
ings and deliberate abuse of the scientific research.
It is not our job to be politically expedient with our analysis or to curry favor with our funders. Whether our conclusions are liked or not is irrelevant. Yet, as we evoke a deus ex machina (such as speculative negative emissions or changing the past) to ensure our analyses conform with today’s political and economic hegemony, we do society a grave disservice — the repercussions of which will be irreversible.
Kevin Anderson is at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Pariser Building, Sackville Street, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
1. Our Common Future under Climate Change—Outcome Statement (CFCC15 Scientific Committee, 2015); http://go.nature.com/WC
2. Concluding Instalment of the Fifth Assessment Report IPCC Press Release (2 November 2014); http://go.nature.com/
3. The Emissions Gap Report 2014 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2014).
4. Fuss, S. et al. Nature 4, 850–853 (2014).
5. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Pachauri, R. K. et al.) (IPCC, 2014).
6. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
7. Global Carbon Atlas Emissions The Global Carbon Project; http://www.globalcarb
8. Anderson, K. et al. Energy Policy 36, 3714–3722 (2008).
9. Anderson, K. & Bows, A. Phil. Trans. R.Soc. A 369, 20–44 (2011).
10. Frame, D. et al. Nature Geosci. 7, 692–693 (2014).
11. Cement Technology Road Map 2009 (International Energy Agency, 2009); http://go.nature.com/Ao
12. Energy Technology Perspectives 2014 (International Energy Agency, 2014); http://go.nature.com/
13. Hammond, G. et al. Energy Policy 52, 103–116 (2013).