ClimateChangeFork

Paris: COP21-Decisions and Issues

Posted on December 8, 2015 by climatechangefork

I am starting to write this blog on Thursday, December 3, four days after the opening of COP21 in Paris, which will conclude on December 11. Expectations are very high for this conference to finally decide upon a global response to anthropogenic climate change. Pope Francis recently shocked the world with his statements about climate change:

“…I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’,” he told a group of reporters aboard the papal plane, en route home from Africa, according to Reuters. “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide…”

This is directly equivalent to an expression that I have used throughout the last three years, in which I have defined global anthropogenic climate change as “self-inflicted genocide” (as of my very first blog post).

The urgency and expectations for mitigating actions that the conference will require are widespread. Copenhagen’s COP15 in December 2009 established that future global warming should be held to an upper limit of 2^oC. That number is used broadly as a reference point for the effectiveness of planned actions. I will warn, however, that these expectations are not likely to be met within COP21.

In my opinion, it is very unlikely that the UNFCCC conference will yield a decision that will limit future warming to 2^oC – mainly because any decision requires unanimous agreement by all the delegates.

I was born in Poland but never had the opportunity to go to school there, so my knowledge of Polish history is not much better than that of most of my readers. However, any time I think of a governing body that requires a unanimous decision, I immediately recall a certain methodology of government that the Polish of yore are (in)famous for. In Latin, it was called “Liberum Veto”:

The liberum veto (Latin for “the free veto”) was a parliamentary device in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a form of unanimity voting rule that allowed any member of the Sejm (legislature) to force an immediate end to the current session and nullify any legislation that had already been passed at the session by shouting Sisto activitatem! (Latin: “I stop the activity!”) or Nie pozwalam! (Polish: “I do not allow!”). The rule was in place from the mid-17th to the late 18th century in the Sejm’s parliamentary deliberations. It was based on the premise that since all Polish noblemen were equal, every measure that came before the Sejm had to be passed unanimously. The principle of liberum veto was a key part of the political system of the Commonwealth, strengthening democratic elements and checking royal power, going against the European-wide trend of having a strong executive (absolute monarchy).

Many historians hold that the principle of liberum veto was a major cause of the deterioration of the Commonwealth political system—particularly in the 18th century, when foreign powers bribed Sejm members to paralyze its proceedings—and the Commonwealth’s eventual destruction in the partitions of Poland and foreign occupation, dominance and manipulation of Poland for the next 200 years or so. Piotr Stefan Wandycz wrote that the “liberum veto had become the sinister symbol of old Polish anarchy.” In the period of 1573–1763, about 150 sejms were held, out of which about a third failed to pass any legislation, mostly due to liberum veto. The expression Polish parliament in many European languages originated from this apparent paralysis.

It is very difficult to get any real binding decisions under these conditions.

Indeed, as I was writing this piece, Bloomberg came out with the following bulletin:

Poland just added one more hurdle to the climate talks in Paris by saying it may not endorse a new climate deal unless it guarantees pollution cuts that are truly global.

It seems that the Polish parliamentary woes of history have been resurrected.

COP21 started in a very impressive way. At least 147 heads of states showed up; they gave encouraging speeches. By now, four days after the opening, most of them have returned to their countries, leaving the negotiations to their representatives. If this conference goes as the previous several have, the negotiations will continue past the closing deadline, running late into the last nights. Hopefully, there will not be a repeat of the “Sisto Activitatem” that blocked the Copenhagen meeting from reaching any binding decisions. The Rules and Procedure of the Conference of the Parties maintain that draft resolutions and other documents must be communicated to the Secretariat 150 days before a meeting. Indeed, the draft resolution is already available for public inspection.

At this stage, the working versions of the agreement being presented are rather broad. Eventually, if an agreement is reached, the final draft will be pruned to represent a clear message. Sizeable disagreements persist throughout the process. Most of them focus on the disparities between developed and developing countries. The developing countries, headed by India and China, argue that since the greatest contributions to climate change came from richer, developed countries, those same countries ought to supply a large transfer of resources to help developing countries adapt to its consequences.

As India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, “the prosperity and progress of an industrial age powered by fossil fuels” enriched the developed countries. If they want the cooperation of the developing countries, they should share the wealth. While the rich countries continue to make commitments, the money doesn’t flow. The US and Europe want full accountability, transparency and verification of compliance by independent experts. China and India feel that they are being shortchanged.

The latest draft version contains 50 pages with about 26 articles and background materials. Here is one section of Article 3 that focuses on mitigation:

Draft agreement and draft decision on workstreams 1 and 2 of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action

Work of the ADP contact group

Version of 3 December 2015@08:00hrs1

A DRAFT AGREEMENT

{Collective long-term goal}

Article 3 (MITIGATION)

[Parties [collectively][cooperatively] aim to reach the global temperature goal referred to in Article 2 through:

a)   [a peaking of global greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible[, recognizing that peaking requires deeper cuts of emissions of developed countries and will be longer for developing countries]]

b)   [rapid reductions thereafter [in accordance with best available science] to at least a X [-Y] per cent reduction in global [greenhouse gas emissions][CO2[e]] compared to 20XX levels by 2050]];

c)   [achieving zero global GHG emissions by 2060-2080]

d)   [a long-term low emissions transformation] [toward [climate neutrality][decarbonization] [over the course of this century] [as soon as possible after mid-century];

e)   [equitable distribution of a global carbon budget based on historical responsibilities and [climate] justice]

[on the basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities] [in the context of sustainable development and eradication of poverty][while ensuring that food security, production and distribution is not threatened][informed by the best available science].

1bis. [To achieve this, policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors [for developed countries]] {Individual efforts}

Each Party shall regularly prepare, communicate   [and maintain] [successive]   [NDMCs*2][INDC] and [shall][should][other] [take appropriate domestic measures] [have in place][identify and] [pursue] [implement] [domestic laws, [nationally determined] policies or other measures] [designed to] [implement][achieve][carry out][that support the implementation of] its [NDMCs*][INDC]].

[Placeholder for article 3.8 and 3.9] [Placeholder for context CBDRCC[, in the light of different national circumstances]] [Placeholder referring to article 4 of the Convention]

[Placeholder for support] {Differentiated efforts}

Option I:

In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Convention, developed country Parties and other Parties included in Annex I shall undertake quantified economy-wide absolute emission reduction commitments/targets, which are comparable, measurable, reportable and verifiable, cover all greenhouse gases and are implemented domestically without any conditions.

Option II:

Option a: Each Party that has previously [communicated] [implemented] absolute economy-wide emissions reduction or limitation targets should continue to do so and all Parties should aim to do so over time.

Option b: Developed country Parties [and other Parties [in a position][that determine] to do so] should take the lead in mitigation efforts, including by [communicating] [and implementing] absolute economy-wide emissions reduction [or limitation] targets and all other Parties should aim to do so over time.

3bis   [Developed country Parties should continue to take the lead].

{Flexibility}

LDCs [and SIDS][and African states] may communicate their [NDMC*][INDC] at their discretion, including information on strategies, plans and actions for low GHG development, reflecting their special circumstances.

{Progression/ambition}

Each Party’s successive [NDMC*][INDC] [shall][should][will] represent a progression beyond the Party’s previous efforts and reflect its highest possible ambition [based on common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities [in light of different national circumstances [and best available science]] [based on provision of finance, technology and capacity-building to developing countries]{Information}

In communicating their [proposed] [intended] [NDMC*][INDC], Parties shall provide the information necessary for clarity, transparency and understanding, in accordance with [decision 1/CP.21][decision 1/CP.20 ] [and any subsequent decisions of the CMA.] [Article 12 of the Convention and the relevant arrangement for reporting information adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP) including those resulting from the Bali Action Plan and the information listed in decision 1/CP.20.]{Features5}

Option 1: Each Party’s [NDMC*][INDC] [shall][should] be quantified or quantifiable, [be unconditional, at least in…….

A final draft is expected by next week, at which point we will analyze it along with the rest of the world.

Of course, even with the best case scenario, in which all the parties agree on the steps that will lead to the desired mitigation of climate change, true enforcement is next to impossible unless the agreement acquires the status and weight of a treaty. Here is what the American constitution says about ratification of international treaties: “The President…shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

Ratification in the US requires confirmation by two thirds of the Senate. In order to accomplish that at the moment, we would essentially need a political revolution – a fact of which the rest of the world is fully aware.

I believe that the global energy transition is happening and will continue to happen. But, as I have said repeatedly, it is a stuttering global energy transition that is mainly driven by bottom-up, grassroots implementation, not top-down. It will take time.

On another note, here is a wonderful carbon clock based on the Keeling and Whorf curve that I discussed in the last blog. Bloomberg has extrapolated the curve to real time electronically, based on the measurements from the last three years. They have supplemented it with a very thorough and well-put-together explanation. Please wake up every morning and have a look.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged Adaptation, ADP, agreement, Carbon, carbon clock, China, Clean Energy, Climate Change, CO2 emissions, Conference, COP21, Copenhagen, developed countries, Developing Countries, Emissions, Energy, energy transition, Environment, Europe, Fossil Fuels, free veto, Genocide, global energy transition, Global Warming, greenhouse gas, INDC, India, IPCC, keeling, Keeling Curve, Liberum Veto, Mitigation, Narendra Modi, NDMC, Paris, Poland, Polish, polish parliament, Pope, Pope Francis, Power, Resources, Science, sejm, Self Inflicted Genocide, Sisto Activitatem, stuttering energy transition, suicide, Sustainability, treaty, UN, UNFCCC, US, whorf, World Population | Leave a comment

Paris – The Beginning

Posted on December 1, 2015 by climatechangefork

Figure 1 – New windmill being installed on the Champs-Élysées in Paris
(Photo by Patrick Kovarik/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)

This blog will be posted one day after the scheduled opening of the COP21 meeting in Paris. The last two blogs, which I dedicated to this conference, also addressed the ramifications of the terrorist attack that happened on Friday, November 13.

This blog is going to be a bit longer than usual because in addition to further discussing the consequences of the attack, I need to conclude my description of the methods being used to measure and report greenhouse gas levels, since that will be a central topic of discussions during the conference.

Following the attack, the French government declared that the meeting would take place as planned but with a considerable tightening of security. As a result, all of the major demonstrations that environmental groups had scheduled for Sunday were cancelled, upsetting a large number of people worldwide. One response to this ban included setting up over 22,000 pairs of donated shoes in the Place de la Republique to “stand in” for a fraction the masses that would have otherwise attended (estimated 200,000-500,000). UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Pope Francis even sent a pair each!

Figure 2 – Shoes placed in Place de la Republique in Paris. (Photo by Patrick Aventurier/Getty Images)

The success of the conference has gathered new urgency as many have reemphasized the connections between warming temperatures and the Syrian civil war. That war has not only resulted in millions of refugees but has also been the cause (according to many) of an increase in the global spread of terrorism. In light of the recent Paris attacks, this problem is at the forefront of the public consciousness. This also means that an objective that many (but not all) at the conference share is to produce an effective agreement to limit anthropogenic contributions to the warming.

Negotiations during the conference are expected to focus on the two main aspects of dealing with anthropogenic global climate change: mitigation of human impact on the climate through changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere and adaptation to those changes that are already taking place (e.g. severe droughts, rising ocean levels, etc.) and will be amplified in the coming years.

Background – The Keeling and Whorf Curve:

Focus on the human impact on climate change started with measurements of the Keeling Whorf curve, a modern version of which is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – A recent version of the Keeling and Whorf curve that measures the carbon dioxide concentrations as observed at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

The original Keeling and Whorf measurements were collected continuously from the same location in Hawaii, starting in 1958. Samples of air were collected four times a day, and the concentration of carbon dioxide was measured by infrared absorption spectroscopy. The measurements showed a steady increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide at the site. Since the original measurements, the monitoring has expanded to other sites at different latitudes. The pattern of a monotonic increase in the carbon concentration is found at every site. You can, for instance, compare the pattern above with the data obtained by NASA through the OCO-2 satellite measurements, as shown in last week’s blog. However, Figure 3 also shows something else: superimposed on the steady CO₂ concentrations in Mauna Loa are very regular oscillations. Such oscillations are absent from similar measurements taken in Antarctica and they vary with the latitude of the site. These oscillations directly exemplify the yearly cycle and the difference between each site’s carbon dioxide source and its sink. The fluctuations represent the full complexities of the carbon cycle as it equilibrates between the land, the air, and the ocean. The yearly cycles shown in Figure 3 were attributed to the large percentage of trees in the northern hemisphere that shed their leaves in the fall and regrow them in the spring. The corresponding result is that less carbon dioxide is captured during the winter than in the summer.

Present Practices:

Unlike the satellite measurements that were described in last week’s blog and the Keeling and Whorf measurements, the IPCC guidelines are not based on direct measurements of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. Instead, they focus on the sources (primarily but not exclusively energy sources) of the greenhouse gases. This completely eliminates the issue of attempting to distinguish between anthropogenic sources and natural sources but they rely fully on our full understanding of the science of these sources and full reliance on the performance of governments.

The current measurement and reporting practices are anchored on guidelines that were issued by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) in 2006, and the periodic (almost annual) updates that the same institution issues.

Figure 3 – Coverpages of the IPCC 2006 guidelines for measurements and reporting of greenhouse gases.

These guidelines came in the form of 5 volumes:

Volume 1 (red) – General Guidelines and Reporting (GGR).

Volume 2 (yellow) – Energy

Volume 3 (green) – Industrial Processing and Product Use (IPPU).

Volume 4 (blue) – Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU).

Volume 5 (violet) – Waste

Volume 1 includes a short description about the concepts involved in these guidelines:

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE 2006 GUIDELINES

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006 Guidelines) were produced at the invitation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to update the Revised 1996 Guidelines and associated good practice guidance1 which provide internationally agreed2 methodologies intended for use by countries to estimate greenhouse gas inventories to report to the UNFCCC. This chapter provides an introduction to the 2006 Guidelines for a broad range of users, including countries and inventory compilers setting out to prepare inventory estimates for the first time. Sections 1.1 to 1.3 describe the overarching framework of these Guidelines, focusing on scope, approach, and structure. Sections 1.4 through 1.5 present step-by-step guidance on how to use the 2006 Guidelines for compiling a greenhouse gas inventory.

1.1 CONCEPTS

Inventories rely on a few key concepts for which there is a common understanding. This helps ensure that inventories are comparable between countries, do not contain double counting or omissions, and that the time series reflect actual changes in emissions.

Anthropogenic emissions and removals

Anthropogenic emissions and removals means that greenhouse gas emissions and removals included in national inventories are a result of human activities. The distinction between natural and anthropogenic emissions and removals follows straightforwardly from the data used to quantify human activity. In the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Sector, emissions and removals on managed land are taken as a proxy for anthropogenic emissions and removals, and inter annual variations in natural background emissions and removals, though these can be significant, are assumed to average out over time.

National territory

National inventories include greenhouse gas emissions and removals taking place within national territory and offshore areas over which the country has jurisdiction. There are some special issues that are described in Section 8.2.1 of Volume 1. For example, emissions from fuel use in road transport is included in the emissions of the country where the fuel is sold and not where the vehicle is driven, as fuel sale statistics are widely available and usually much more accurate.

Inventory year and time series

National inventories contain estimates for the calendar year during which the emissions to (or removals from) the atmosphere occur. Where suitable data to follow this principle are missing, emissions/removals may be estimated using data from other years applying appropriate methods such as averaging, interpolation and extrapolation. A sequence of annual greenhouse gas inventory estimates (e.g., each year from 1990 to 2000) is called a time series. Because of the importance of tracking emissions trends over time, countries should ensure that a time series of estimates is as consistent as possible.

Inventory reporting

A greenhouse gas inventory report includes a set of standard reporting tables covering all relevant gases, categories and years, and a written report that documents the methodologies and data used to prepare the estimates. The 2006 Guidelines provide standardized reporting tables, but the actual nature and content of the tables and written report may vary according to, for example, a country’s obligations as a Party to the UNFCCC. The 2006 Guidelines provide worksheets to assist with the transparent application of the most basic (or Tier 1)

1.2 ESTIMATION METHODS

As with the 1996 Guidelines and IPCC Good Practice Guidance the most common simple methodological approach is to combine information on the extent to which a human activity takes place (called activity data or AD) with coefficients which quantify the emissions or removals per unit activity. These are called emission factors (EF). The basic equation is therefore:

Emissions = AD • EF

For example, in the energy sector fuel consumption would constitute activity data, and mass of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of fuel consumed would be an emission factor. The basic equation can in some circumstances be modified to include other estimation parameters than emission factors. Where time lags are involved, due for example to the time it takes for material to decompose in a landfill or leakage of refrigerants from cooling devices, other methods are provided, for example first order decay methods. The 2006 Guidelines also allow for more complex modelling approaches, particularly at higher tiers. Though this simple equation is widely used, the 2006 Guidelines also contain mass balance methods, for example the stock change methods used in the AFOLU sector which estimates CO2 emissions from changes over time in carbon content of living biomass and dead organic matter pools. Carbon dioxide from the combustion or decay of short-lived biogenic material removed from where it was grown is reported as zero in the Energy, IPPU and Waste Sectors (for example CO2 emissions from iofuels6,7, and CO2 emissions from biogenic material in Solid Waste Disposal Sites (SWDS)). In the AFOLU Sector, when using Tier 1 methods for short lived products, it is assumed that the emission is balanced by carbon uptake prior to harvest, within the uncertainties of the estimates, so the net emission is zero. Where higher Tier estimation shows that this emission is not balanced by a carbon removal from the atmosphere, this net emission or removal should be included in the emission and removal estimates for AFOLU Sector through carbon stock change estimates. Material with long lifetime is dealt with in the HWP section.

IPCC methods use the following concepts:

Good Practice: In order to promote the development of high quality national greenhouse gas inventories a collection of methodological principals, actions and procedures were defined in the previous guidelines and collectively referred to as good practice. The 2006 Guidelines retain the concept of good practice including the definition introduced with GPG2000. This has achieved general acceptance amongst countries as the basis for inventory development and says that inventories consistent with good practice are those which contain neither over- nor under-estimates so far as can be judged, and in which uncertainties are reduced as far as practicable.

Tiers: A tier represents a level of methodological complexity. Usually three tiers are provided. Tier 1 is the basic method, Tier 2 intermediate and Tier 3 most demanding in terms of complexity and data requirements. Tiers 2 and 3 are sometimes referred to as higher tier methods and are generally considered to be more accurate.

Default data: Tier 1 methods for all categories are designed to use readily available national or international statistics in combination with the provided default emission factors and additional parameters that are provided, and therefore should be feasible for all countries.

Key Categories: The concept of key category8 is used to identify the categories that have a significant influence on a country’s total inventory of greenhouse gases in terms of the absolute level of emissions and removals, the trend in emissions and removals, or uncertainty in emissions and removals. Key Categories should be the priority for countries during inventory resource allocation for data collection, compilation, quality assurance/quality control and reporting.

In future blogs, I will be able to shift from speculations to assessments, as we try to understand and explain the various prevailing currents at the conference.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged Adaptation, Antarctica, attack, Ban-Ki Moon, Canada, carbon dioxide, Clean Energy, climate, Climate Change, CO2 emissions, Conference, COP21, Cycle, Economics, Education, electrical power, Electricity, Emissions, Energy, energy transition, Environment, environmentalist, Fossil Fuels, Francois Hollande, Global Population, greenhouse gas, guidelines, Hawaii, IPCC, Justin Trudeau, keeling, Keeling Curve, march, Mauna Loa, Mitigation, OCO-2, oscillation, Paris, place de la republique, Pope Francis, Population, Power, protest, refugee, Science, shoes, Solar, stuttering energy transition, Sustainability, Syria, Technology, terrorist, UN, UNFCCC, US, whorf, windmill, World Population | Leave a comment

Paris: Measurements for the Future

Posted on November 24, 2015 by climatechangefork

OCO_2

Last week I evaluated the commitments that various countries have made in preparation for the COP21 meeting that is scheduled for the end of this month. Specifically, I looked at the difficulty in converting the commitments from individual countries into practicable (enforceable) global commitments. This transition must include the differentiation between conditional and unconditional commitments while also allowing for the changing variables of population growth, economic growth, rates of energy usage, and the makeup of energy sources. These measurements will mostly come from UN, the World Bank and the European Commission. Almost all of the calculations for building scenarios to accomplish this conversion are anchored on the IPAT identity that I have discussed repeatedly throughout the pages of this blog.

This week and next week I’ll examine an even more fundamental component of the commitments – the measurements themselves. Since the Paris meeting will focus on the future, I will start the discussion with future measurements, largely based on data from satellite monitoring, which is independent of individual countries’ input. I will continue next week with a look at the current uses of this technology, as largely coordinated by the IPCC and the UNFCCC.

The technology for direct global satellite observations of carbon dioxide was recently given a major boost with NASA’s launching of OCO-2, the recent component of NASA’s “Earth Observation Fleet.”:

The OCO-2 Project primary science objective is to collect the first space-based measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide with the precision, resolution and coverage needed to characterize its sources and sinks and quantify their variability over the seasonal cycle. During its two-year mission, OCO-2 will fly in a sun-synchronous, near-polar orbit with a group of Earth-orbiting satellites with synergistic science objectives whose ascending node crosses the equator near 13:30 hours Mean Local Time (MLT). Near-global coverage of the sunlit portion of Earth is provided in this orbit over a 16-day (233-revolution) repeat cycle. OCO-2’s single instrument incorporates three high-resolution grating spectrometers, designed to measure the near-infrared absorption of reflected sunlight by carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen.

The project is currently limited to two years but we all hope that if successful, it will be extended indefinitely and that other space agencies will expand and double check the coverage.

The data from the satellite observations are being posted on a common site for the GES DISC’s “Earth Observation Fleet.” Below is a section of the site’s front page, including the fleet’s other components.

Here is a short introduction to the data:

An exciting week for us – Sept 6th, 2015 marks one year of operational data collection for OCO-2!
And, we have prepared the year of OCO-2 lite files, with bias correction and warn levels! We will open the portal on Tuesday (9/8/2015) CO2 Data Portal to share those datasets. There is one file per day (much fewer than the standard product), and the number of ancillary data fields are reduced to create smaller files. Documentation will also be on the portal.

Key information in the documentation:

– Descriptions of the data fields and organization in the netcdf files.
– For XCO2, we describe in detail the warn levels, which are an indication of the data quality. The user can trade off data quality and data volume by selection of warn levels. See attached for details.
– Also for XCO2, we describe the process used to calculate the bias correction, and provide characteristics of the corrections that were applied. The uncorrected XCO2 and fields used in the correction are all included in the netcdf files.
– The SIF lite file document describes the data fields and corrections that are applied to that product.
As with the L2Std and L2Dia files, there is a collection for the forward processing stream (v7) and the reprocessing stream (v7r), which runs from Sept 2014 through May 2015. The reprocessing data stream has a larger data volume.

We are happy to hear your comments and questions – please email oco2_feedback@jpl.nasa.gov

A “typical” example of the data and its corresponding caption as they appear in the NASA publication follows:

Figure 1 – Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11, as recorded by NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Preliminary analysis of the African data shows the high levels there are largely driven by the burning of savannas and forests. Elevated carbon dioxide can also be seen above industrialized Northern Hemisphere regions in China, Europe and North America

As we saw in an earlier blog (June 25, 2012) where I discussed the Carbon Cycle in another context, the yearly anthropogenic contributions to the carbon dioxide flux between the atmosphere and the land and oceans are less than 4%. NASA claims that OCO-2, has a high enough resolution to differentiate the anthropogenic contributions from the “natural” background contributions. This capability has yet to be demonstrated.

Follow-up on the terrorist attack:

In light of the terrorist attack on Paris that took place on Friday, November 13, I will try to include an update on the impact that the attack is having on the meeting in every blog.

During this first week, the President of France, Francois Hollande declared that the meeting will proceed as planned. The American government has declared that President Obama will also attend as planned.

However, Reuters came out with the following headline: “Green groups re-think massive Paris climate march after attacks.” This was followed the next day by the New York Times article, “Paris Attacks Hit Luxury Hotels Particularly Hard” which included the following paragraph:

And the United Nations conference on climate change, which is scheduled to begin Nov. 30 and run for two weeks, was expected to bring 40,000 visitors to the city and serve as the hub of countless dinners and receptions. But citing security concerns, the French government has ordered the conference to be scaled back to the bare essentials, resulting in the cancellation of more than 200 planned events around the .

Financially, this will have a huge impact because many “green tourists” that would have attended those events, will instead stay away from Paris. This decision will also have a massive effect on how non-politicians around the world participate, whether that means that they take to social media, demonstrate in other countries, or something else entirely.

I will keep you posted.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged Adaptation, carbon dioxide, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, China, Clean Energy, Climate Change, CO2, CO2 emissions, commitment, COP21, countries, Data, Earth Observation Fleet, Economics, Emissions, Energy, energy transition, Environment, Fossil Fuels, France, GDP, GES DISC, Global, Global Population, Global Warming, green tourist, greenhouse gas, individual, IPCC, measurement, Mitigation, NASA, OCO-2, Paris, Paris 2015, Paris attacks, Population, Power, satellite, Science, spectrometer, stuttering energy transition, Sustainability, Technology, Transition, UN, UNFCCC, US, variable, World Population | Leave a comment

COP21 and Paris – Evaluation of Commitments

Posted on November 17, 2015 by climatechangefork

Two weeks ago, through this blog, I was “on my way” to Paris. I wish I could actually be there (see the last two paragraphs for my sentiments on Friday’s terrorist attack and its ramifications); I like the city, I have family there, and at the end of the month the city will host what is perhaps the most anticipated climate change conference ever – COP21. I cannot be there physically because I have teaching responsibilities here that can’t be pushed aside. Meanwhile, I have asked my family in Paris to observe their surroundings and write a guest blog on the general atmosphere that accompanies the conference. I have also told my students that the second part of the semester and the final exam will focus on the conference. This blog will be one of the background materials they rely on, along with class discussions and media coverage. I have articulated that they should not take everything that they read at face value, instead requesting that they analyze the conference’s progress and conclusions on their own, based on the tools that they have acquired in class.

The November 3^rd blog included short summaries of the commitments from the world’s 10 largest carbon emitters. You can read the full commitments of all 134 participating countries on the UNFCCC site. China’s full commitment includes 14 pages written in Chinese as well as a 20 page English translation. The US commitment meanwhile, consists of 5 pages, along with a referral to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) site for full details. In most cases, the countries provide not only their direct commitments but also an up-to-date status report of their economic activities, aspirations for economic growth, population, and energy use. Such information is vital to building accurate scenarios upon which the commitments rest.

Recently, analyses of the sum of the total commitments, and thus their global implications, started to appear throughout the press and on the net. Here are few examples:

A recent IEA (International Energy Agency) report warns that as they stand, the commitments to the UNFCCC will not be enough to achieve the target of limiting the temperature change to below 2^oC – the number that many international organizations have aimed for.

Further underscoring that point, the Joint Research Center of the European Commission came out (October 27, 2015) with the following attention-grabbing headline: “Current climate commitments would increase global temperature around 3° C.” Fortunately, in spite of its title, the report itself presents a much more optimistic and balanced picture:

Abstract:

JRC analysis finds that submitted INDCs on climate policy can put the world on a path to reduce emissions in a more anticipated manner compared to current policies. Unconditional INDCs would lead to 56.6 GtCO2e in 2030 (excl. sinks; +17% 2010 with 42.2 GtCO2e) while conditional INDCs combined would lead to a clear peak shortly before 2030 at 54.0 GtCO2e (+12% vs. 2010). These scenarios, if extended to 2050, would already cover 30% to 44% of the emissions reductions needed to remain below a 2 °C temperature increase.

The following scenarios were modelled:

No Policy: Assumes no climate action in the future, including a relaxation of currently existing policies before 2020.

Reference: Assumes announced policies for 2020 and a relaxation of policies after 2020; emissions are driven by income growth, energy prices and expected technological evolution with no supplementary incentivizing of low-carbon technologies. Emissions continue to grow at a decelerated pace but reach no peak by 2050.

Global Mitigation: Assumes a rapid intensification of policies across several world countries from 2015, leading to a peak in emissions as early as 2020. A progressive convergence of underlying carbon prices after 2030, depending on their per capita income, leads to a “below 2 °C-compatible” emissions profile by 2050.

INDC-low: All INDCs expressed unconditionally are implemented; countries where the Reference already lead to emissions at or lower than their INDCs, as well as countries with no INDCs or conditional-only INDCs, do not implement additional policies. No commitment was assumed for low-income African countries. Beyond 2030, regional carbon prices increase, including for countries that previously had no climate policies, and progressively converge, at a speed that depends on their per capita income; on average, the world GHG intensity over 2030-2050 decreases at the same rate as for 2020-2030.

INDC-high: Similar to INDC-low, but all INDCs are implemented, including all conditional contributions.

The 120 countries that submitted INDCs as of October 13 2015 represented 88.0% of global GHG emissions in 2010 (excluding world bunkers; metrics using World Resources Institute’s CAIT WRI 2014). Most of the INDCs were used in the modelling (see Table 1 in Annex).

Global emissions continue to rise in the Reference scenario throughout 2050, whereas the implementation of INDCs and a prolonged effort after 2030 result in curbing emissions and a peak in 2035 (INDC-low) or 2030 (INDC-high). The emissions in the two INDC scenarios result in a global temperature increase of around 3 °C.

The decrease of emissions intensity per unit of GDP marks a break from the historical trend (-1.8%/year) in all climate policy scenarios:

it is slightly above the historical average in the Reference (thanks to the deployment of renewables technologies that is expected to take place even without strong climate policies);

it more than doubles in the ambitious Global Mitigation scenario;

it ranges from -3 to -3.3%/year in the INDC

The aggregate level of ambition of the INDCs by 2025 and 2030 thus represents a significant deviation from historical trends and will require efforts to implement current and new policies. This will mean a significant transformation of the energy sector and land use policies.

Nevertheless, emissions in both INDC scenarios are above least-cost pathways to limit the global temperature increase below 2 °C (illustrated by the Global Mitigation scenario).

Emissions from world marine and air bunkers continue to rise in all scenarios, as they are not subject to an international climate policy to curb their emissions. They rise at an average of 2.4%/year over 2015-2030 (2.9%/year over 1990-2015), driven by international mobility and trade, and increase from 1.4 GtCO2 in 2013 (i.e. 3% of global emissions) to about 2.1 GtCO2 in 2030 (3.5-4% of global emissions in the INDC scenarios).

JRC97845_Analysis

The total emissions in 2030 are 3.5 GtCO2e lower in the INDC-low versus the Reference case, and conditional INDCs lead them 2.5 GtCO2e lower. The majority of emissions reductions are achieved in the power sector (51% from Reference to INDC-high), followed by CO2 in other energy sectors (19%), non-CO2 greenhouse gases in energy and industry (13%), non-CO2 in agriculture (11%) and CO2 in LULUCF (6%; the effect of sinks¹⁰ has not been taken into account ).

For educational purposes, the most interesting part of this summary is the attached Annex 2 that lists all of the references that they have used for the analysis.

Annex 2 from JRC policy brief

The UNFCCC has its own summary and analysis of the commitments which I’m sure I will refer to often. Presently, however, I find the JRC European Commission analysis much more transparent and useful for demonstration purposes, which is why I have referenced it more recently. See, for example, the following excerpts that I included in the November 3^rd blog:

The submission of the target by the United States was made on the assumption that other Annex I Parties, as well as more advanced non-Annex I Parties, would, by 31 January 2010, associate with the Copenhagen Accord and submit mitigation actions for compilation into an information document in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5 of the Accord, as the case may be. USA

China stated that the above-mentioned autonomous domestic mitigation actions are voluntary in nature and that they will be implemented in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 4, paragraph 7. The Party also stated that its communication is made in accordance with the provisions of Article 12, paragraphs 1(b) and 4, and Article 10, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention. China

None of the commitments at this point are binding. US Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized this point on November 11^th, when he stated that whatever decisions are made at the COP21 meeting cannot be implemented like a treaty because they have no chance of being ratified by the US Senate. The response that he got from the international community at large was that while that may be true, the decisions cannot be treated as hot air either.

Another issue that needs to be followed closely is that the negotiations are being conducted by states, and sometimes states don’t tell the full truth. One relevant example is the recent finding that China has been seriously underreporting the extent of its coal use. Since right now all the emissions accounting is done by the states themselves, what is needed is an independent audit. Today’s technology makes that possible and I will cover it in future blogs.

I was about to finish writing this blog on Friday, November 13, when I got a phone call from my family in Paris telling me about the shooting in their neighborhood and reporting that there was an overwhelming police presence everywhere they looked. At that time they had no idea what was going on in the rest of the city but asked me not to call because they were going to sleep (it was 9:30pm there). I stopped my writing and started to follow the news. It was quickly obvious that a major terrorist attack was taking place all over Paris and one of the most deadly focal points was a popular Cambodian restaurant just a few minutes’ walk from their apartment. By the time it was all over, 129 people were counted dead and a few hundred more were injured – 99 of them critically. This was one of the worst attacks in Europe since the Second World War.

There is probably no direct causal connection between the terrorist attack and the upcoming COP21 meeting there in less than two weeks, but there is no question in my mind that the attack will have a direct impact on the meeting itself. We will all keep our eyes open to monitor how the attack affects the Paris meeting and will try to analyze the consequences of that impact.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged Accounting, Adaptation, attack, Carbon, carbon dioxide, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, China, Clean Energy, climate, Climate Change, CO2, CO2 emissions, Coal, commitment, Conference, COP21, Emissions, Energy, energy transition, Environment, EPA, European Commission, Family, Fossil Fuels, France, global energy transition, Global Warming, greenhouse gas, IEA, INDC, IPCC, John Kerry, JRC, meeting, Mitigation, model, Paris, ratify, scenario, Science, senate, stuttering energy transition, Sustainability, Technology, terrorist, Transition, treaty, UN, UNFCCC, US | Leave a comment

China – Cap and Trade With Babies?

Posted on November 10, 2015 by climatechangefork

Last week I started discussing the upcoming COP21 conference in Paris. I talked about the Earth Summit, which sanctioned the IPCCC, and included the near term commitments from the 10 most carbon emitting countries as to reduction of their emissions within the next 10 years or so. I promised that most of my blogs until the end of the year would be dedicated to the analysis of these commitments, along with the discussions and agreements that take place at and result from the Paris meeting. I intend to keep my promise, budgeting in the usual exception of breaking news that I feel I need to address.

Naturally, just as I was starting, something important did happen: a few days ago China decided to change its one child policy to a two child policy. Most of the rest of the world sort of yawned and said, “About time!” But many, including myself, see this as a sign that China still doesn’t understand the failings of its system. We think that in order to ensure a better future, it should follow the rest of the world and completely reject all birth restriction policies. To compound the confusion, the new ruling doesn’t take effect immediately, so the country will have to wait until March 2016 for “implementation.” It is not clear to me at what stage the implementation takes place: the actual birth or the attempts to have an additional baby – usually there is some time difference between the two.

I am not going to try to enumerate all the problems that China has encountered since its introduction of the one child policy. I will let the following graphs speak for themselves:

$History and Projection of Relative fraction of elderly population in China and the US$ Figure 1– History and Projection of Relative fraction of elderly population in China and the US

Figure 2 – Cumulative size of working age populations

Figure 3 – Comparison of fertility rates

Figure 4 – Comparative ranking of sex ratio at birth

I am not sure that all of the demographic issues China is now facing can be traced to the one child policy. As is obvious from Figure 3, the decline in fertility rate didn’t start with the introduction of the one child policy. It is now well below the replacement rate of 2.1 (it has stood at 1.7 over the last few years). Similarly, this decline will not stop with the replacement of the one child policy with a two child policy. It seems to me that the policy is designed to try to provide demographic remedies while still maintaining strict government control over family size and family life. The unique position that China holds in terms of gender ratio as seen in Figure 4 can be traced directly to the wide-spread gender-specific termination of pregnancies. The figures clearly indicate that what China needs is not policies to limit population growth, but rather those that would bring it back to a demographic equilibrium where the fertility rate approaches the replacement rate of 2.1. As we saw in earlier blogs (in particular the January 14, 2014 guest blog by Jim Foreit), money and women’s education are excellent birth control tools to lower fertility rates. On the other hand, we saw that raising fertility rates from below the replacement value back to the replacement value is much more difficult.

China’s change of policy to two children per household might provide some demographic relief and might even reduce gender-driven termination of pregnancies, but it does not address these issues in a way that will provide lasting solutions. I dare to suggest an alternative policy to the Chinese government that will preserve the role of the Chinese bureaucracy in family but might improve the demographic result: employ Cap and Trade policy with babies.

As part of China’s commitment to the IPCCC to limit its carbon emissions, China has recently started to implement Cap and Trade in carbon emission. The technique is simple: the government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon contained in consumed fuels in the country and enforces it by issuing a limited number of allowances. The government can sell the allowances or distribute them for free to gasoline manufacturers and importers. After the distribution, people are able to trade them— the net effect is a rise in prices of carbon-based fuels and a reduction in consumption of these fuels.

Now let’s look at how this process would work when we apply it to babies. Every woman in a certain age bracket gets a certificate from the government that allows her to have two babies. If she wants more she can purchase an allowance from a woman that will want less. My strong suspicion is that there will be a surplus of allowances and that they will not cost much. The main difference between the policy of limiting pollution and the policy of controlling family size is that the state interest in controlling pollution is obvious – to limit it in the most economically viable way. There is no demographic need now in China to limit family size. There is, however, a strong demographic need to both bring the fertility rate back to replacement levels and bring the gender gap back to an equilibrium. The only way that I can think of to bring about these balances is to implement the cap and trade system from above while adding a state bank with the power to grant and subsidize more allowances. The Chinese government is probably the best government in the world to experiment with such a policy, given its proven ability to retain tight control over most aspects of Chinese life.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged Age Distribution, babies, baby, birth, Cap and Trade, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, China, CO2, CO2 emissions, COP21, Economics, elderly, Emissions, Environment, Equilibrium, Family, Fertility, Fertility Rate, Fertility Replacement Rate, Gender, gender gap, Government, IPCC, Mitigation, One-Child Policy, Policy, Pollution, Population, pregnancy, pregnant, restriction, sex ratio, Sustainability, World Population | Leave a comment

On the Way to Paris

Posted on November 3, 2015 by climatechangefork

The twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) and the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) will take place from 30 November to 11 December 2015, in Paris, France.

The UNFCCC (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) is the international climate policy venue that was negotiated at the Earth Summit in Rio-de-Janeiro in 1992. Its mandate is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.^[3] Of the 17 goals that the United Nations recently announced (see October 6 blog), the mitigation and adaptation of anthropogenic climate change was #13. It was the only one of the goals whose administration and enforcement was entrusted to a specified organization – the IPCC. The upcoming Paris conference is the 21^st Conference of Parties (COP) assembled to try to accomplish the IPCC’s mission. The two most noteworthy COP conferences in the past were COP3 (held in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan), where the Kyoto Protocol was formed and signed, and COP15 (held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009). Each of these brought with it a similar air of expectation to that which the Paris meeting is arousing. Many hope that COP21 will extend or replace the now expired Kyoto protocol. I will try to follow the Paris meeting throughout the rest of the year (but I expect the usual interruptions from pressing current events).

The much anticipated Paris IPCC meeting is expected to ask the nations of the world to commit in advance to taking certain actions to stabilize their greenhouse gas contributions. Today I will quote the commitments of the 10 most polluting nations; next week I will go more into depth about some reactions to these statements.

Figure 1 – Global map of CO₂ emitters

Figure 2 – List of countries and the their CO₂emission and their emission per capita

The commitments of the most polluting countries as given to the UNFCCC are shown below:

China:

China communicated that it will endeavour to lower its CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 per cent by 2020 compared with the 2005 level. It also expressed the intention to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15 per cent by 2020 and to increase forest coverage by 40 million ha and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion m3 by 2020 compared with the 2005 levels.

China stated that the above-mentioned autonomous domestic mitigation actions are voluntary in nature and that they will be implemented in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 4, paragraph 7. The Party also stated that its communication is made in accordance with the provisions of Article 12, paragraphs 1(b) and 4, and Article 10, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention.

USA:

The United States communicated a target in the range of a 17 per cent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 2005 levels, in conformity with anticipated United States energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the secretariat in the light of the enacted legislation. In addition, the pathway set forth in pending legislation would entail a 30 per cent emission reduction by 2025 and a 42 per cent emission reduction by 2030, in line with the goal to reduce emissions by 83 per cent by 2050. The submission of the target by the United States was made on the assumption that other Annex I Parties, as well as more advanced non-Annex I Parties, would, by 31 January 2010, associate with the Copenhagen Accord and submit mitigation actions for compilation into an information document in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5 of the Accord, as the case may be.

India:

India communicated that it will endeavour to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 20-25 per cent by 2020 compared with the 2005 level. It added that emissions from the agriculture sector would not form part of the assessment of its emissions intensity.

India stated that the proposed domestic actions are voluntary in nature and will not have a legally binding character. It added that these actions will be implemented in accordance with the provisions of relevant national legislation and policies, as well as the principles and provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 4, paragraph 7. Finally, it added that this information has been communicated in accordance with the provisions of Article 12, paragraphs 1(b) and 4, and Article 10, paragraph 2(a), of the Convention.

The European Union:

The EU and its member States communicated an independent quantified economy wide emission reduction target of a 20 per cent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. Under the conditions set out by the European Council of December 2009 and as part of a global and comprehensive agreement for the period beyond 2012, the EU reiterated its conditional offer to move to a 30 per cent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 1990 levels, provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and that developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities.

The EU and its 27 member States wished to reconfirm their commitment to a negotiating process aimed at achieving the strategic objective of limiting the increase in global average temperature to below 2 C above pre-industrial levels. Meeting that objective requires the level of global GHG emissions to peak by 2020 at the latest, to be reduced by at least 50 per cent compared with 1990 levels by 2050 and to continue to decline thereafter. To this end, and in accordance with the findings of the FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1/Rev.1

The Russian Federation:

The Russian Federation communicated a target within the range of a 15-25 per cent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. The range of its GHG emission reductions will depend on the following conditions:

(a) Appropriate accounting of the potential of Russia’s forestry sector in the context of its contribution to meeting the obligations of anthropogenic emission reductions;

(b) The undertaking by all major emitters of the legally binding obligations to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions. * **

* The Russian Federation communicated to the secretariat information on its quantified economy-wide emission reduction target in Russian, which can be found on the UNFCCC website. It also provided an unofficial translation of its submission in English and an edited version of this translation is included in this document.

Brazil:

Brazil communicated that it anticipates its mitigation actions, listed below, to lead to an expected emissions reduction of between 36.1 per cent and 38.9 per cent below its projected emissions in 2020:

(a) A reduction in deforestation in the Amazon (range of estimated reduction: 564 Mt carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) in 2020);

(b) A reduction in ‘cerrado’ deforestation (range of estimated reduction: 104 Mt CO2 eq in 2020);

(c) A restoration of grazing land (range of estimated reduction: 83 to 104 Mt CO2 eq in 2020);

(d) An integrated crop-livestock system (range of estimated reduction: 18 to 22 Mt CO2 eq in 2020);

(e) No-till farming (range of estimated reduction: 16 to 20 Mt CO2 eq in 2020);

(f) Biological nitrogen fixation (range of estimated reduction: 16 to 20 Mt CO2 eq in 2020);

(g) Energy efficiency (range of estimated reduction: 12 to 15 Mt CO2 eq in 2020);

(h) An increase in the use of biofuels (range of estimated reduction: 48 to 60 Mt CO2 eq in 2020);

(i) An increase in energy supply from hydroelectric power plants (range of estimated reduction: 79 to 99 Mt CO2 eq in 2020);

(j) Alternative energy sources (range of estimated reduction: 26 to 33 Mt CO2 eq in 2020);

(k) Iron and steel – replacing coal from deforestation with coal from planted forests (range of estimated reduction: 8 to 10 Mt CO2 eq in 2020).

Brazil stated that the envisaged domestic actions as indicated above are voluntary in nature and that they will be implemented in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention, particularly Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 7, Article 10, paragraph 2(a), and Article 12, paragraphs l(b) and 4. It also stated that the use of the clean development mechanism (CDM) established under the Kyoto Protocol would not be excluded.

Brazil also stated that it understands the Copenhagen Accord to be an important step in facilitating the conclusion of the on-going two-track negotiations under the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA with a view to adopting a decision on the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and also on the fulfilment of the Bali Action Plan during COP 16/CMP 6.

Japan:

Japan * ** announced a target of a 3.8 per cent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 2005 levels.

The target does not currently take into account the emission reduction effect resulting from nuclear power, given that the energy policy and energy mix, including the utilization of nuclear power, are still under consideration. A firm target, based on further review of the energy policy and energy mix, will eventually be set.

* Japan initially communicated a target of a 25 per cent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. The original communication is available here.

Indonesia:

Indonesia communicated that its voluntary NAMAs will reduce its GHG emissions by 26 per cent by 2020.

Indonesia added that this reduction would be achieved through, inter alia:

(a) Sustainable peat land management;

(b) A reduction in the rate of deforestation and land degradation;

(c) The development of carbon sequestration projects in forestry and agriculture;

(d) The promotion of energy efficiency;

(e) The development of alternative and renewable energy sources;

(f) A reduction in solid and liquid waste;

(g) Shifting to low-emission modes of transport.

Indonesia also communicated that its national action plan, aimed at achieving the aforementioned emissions reduction, would be equipped with a measurable, reportable and verifiable system in order to ensure that each action receives the necessary level of funding.

Republic of Korea:

The Republic of Korea communicated that it aims to reduce its national GHG emissions by 30 per cent from the ‘business as usual’ emissions in 2020.

Canada:

Canada communicated a target of a 17 per cent emission reduction by 2020 compared with 2005 levels, to be aligned with the final economy-wide emission reduction target of the United States of America in enacted legislation. Submission of this target was made with the expectation that other Annex I Parties and major Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention (non-Annex I Parties) would submit information on their emission targets and mitigation actions by 31 January 2010, pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Copenhagen Accord.

Next week I will analyze these commitments in terms of their perceived impact on the mitigation of humanity’s future global contributions to global climate change.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged Adaptation, Anthropogenic, Brazil, Canada, China, Clean Energy, Climate Change, CO2, CO2 emissions, Conference, COP21, Earth Summit, Electricity, Emissions, emitter, Energy, Environment, EU, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming, greenhouse gas, India, Indonesia, IPCC, Japan, Korea, Kyoto Protocol, Mitigation, Paris, Pollution, Russia, Sustainability, UN, UNFCCC, US, World Population | Leave a comment

Working for a Better Future

Posted on October 27, 2015 by climatechangefork

The 2016 presidential election campaign is heating up in the US and it seems to me that the widely accepted degree of cynicism about politicians is reaching new heights. In fact, it has already reached the point of paralyzing important parts of the government. Naturally, political campaigns focus on candidates’ promises of future action rather than accountability for their past activities. Climate change is at the forefront of such debates. Climate change activists are calling for action now as they try not only to ensure a better future, but to prevent some of the global catastrophes whose initial markers are already visible. Given how many politicians have actively worked to prevent actions that would help mitigate the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, public distrust is not surprising. Indeed, politicians’ tendency to discount the future is reaching new heights. Here, I’d like to elevate the debate from the collective shouting match over of what the future will hold to a more educational level.

I will start with academic research effort that was recently documented in the New York Times Op-Ed “The Power of Precise Predictions” by Philip E. Tetlock and Peter Scoblick:

The problem with such predictions is that it is difficult to square them with objective reality. Why? Because few of them are specific enough to be testable. Key terms are left vague and undefined. (What exactly does “underscore leadership” mean?) Hedge words like “might” or “could” are deployed freely. And forecasts frequently fail to include precise dates or time frames. Even the most emphatic declarations — like former Vice President Dick Cheney’s prediction that the deal “will lead to a nuclear-armed Iran” — can be too open-ended to disconfirm.

There is a familiar psychological mechanism at work here. One of us, Professor Tetlock, has been running lab studies since the early 1980s that show that if people expect that others will evaluate the accuracy of their judgments — that is, if people feel they will be held accountable for their views — then they tend to avoid cognitive pitfalls such as overconfidence and the failure to update beliefs in response to new evidence. Professor Tetlock and the psychologist Jennifer Lerner have demonstrated that accountability has this effect because it encourages people to pre-emptively think of ways in which they might be wrong —before others do it for them.

But when people make non-falsifiable predictions, they feel less accountable. After all, if a prediction can never be disproved, then it poses no reputational risk. That lack of accountability, in turn, encourages overconfidence and even more extreme predictions.

Non-falsifiable predictions thus undermine the quality of our discourse. They also impede our ability to improve policy, for if we can never judge whether a prediction is good or bad, we can never discern which ways of thinking about a problem are best.

The solution is straightforward: Replace vague forecasts with testable predictions. Will the International Atomic Energy Agency report in December that Iran has adequately resolved concerns about the potential military dimensions of its nuclear program? Will Iran export or dilute its quantities of low-enriched uranium in excess of 300 kilograms by the deal’s “implementation day” early next year? Within the next six months, will any disputes over I.A.E.A. access to Iranian sites be referred to the Joint Commission for resolution?

This suggests a way to improve real-world discussion. Suppose, during the next ideologically charged policy debate, that we held a public forecasting tournament in which representatives from both sides had to make concrete predictions. (We are currently sponsoring such a tournament on the Iran deal.) Based on what we have seen in previous tournaments, this exercise would decrease the distance between the two camps. And because it would be possible to determine a “winner,” it would help us learn whether the conservative or liberal assessment of the issue was more accurate.

The article focuses on the recent arguments regarding the Iran nuclear deal, but applying the same argument to climate change can easily bring about calls of, “stick to predicting the weather and leave the climate alone.” Here is how Wikipedia defines the difference between weather and climate:

There is often confusion between weather and climate. Weather is the day to day condition of the atmosphere at a particular place while climate is an average of weather condition at a particular place over a long period of time. Weather is the condition of the atmosphere at a particular place over a short period of time. For example, on a particular day in Trinidad, the weather is warm in the afternoon. But later in the day, when there are clouds blocking Sun’s rays, the weather would become cooler. Climate refers to the weather pattern of a place over a long period, maybe 30 years or more, long enough to yield meaningful averages (^[1]^[2]). For example, although the weather in Pakistan may be cool and dry today, Pakistan’s climate is hot most of the time.

Two of my first blogs on this platform discussed similar arguments (May 7 and August 13, 2012). Here is a key paragraph from the May 7, 2012 blog:

A student of mine at Brooklyn College in a general education course on Energy Use and Climate Change forwarded to me a letter that was published in the on-line publication Business Insider (April 11, 2012). The letter was signed by 49 former NASA employees that included seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center calling NASA to move away from climate model predictions and to limit its stance to what can be “empirically proven.” The letter specifically targets James Hansen – Director of NASA Goddard Institute (GISS) (Hansen and the GISS have been acting as the “the canary in the coal mine” warning for years about the consequences of relying on fossil fuels as our main source of energy.) The letter states that, “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.” The reason for the doubt includes that.” NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance” and that “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO₂is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.” This is backwards; it’s the letter that should be held up to public ridicule.

As I have mentioned repeatedly, effective mitigation of climate change requires a global evolution in attitude and a collective effort to develop technologies that will facilitate a worldwide energy transition without sacrificing economic development. It also requires time. The Brundtland report (see the January 28, 2013 blog) defined sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” With Tetlock and Scoblick’s requirement of refutability, we can neither refute nor confirm the needs of future generations at this time.

Tetlock and Scoblick postulate that by limiting predictions to the concrete and quantifiable, the limit acts as a restraining factor in discussions about the future. Since the predictor is aware that his/her predictions might be proven wrong, he/she is more careful about what he/she claims will happen. However, for this system to work, the predictions have to be tested within the predictor’s tenure in his/her position; otherwise, they may not care about the consequences of being proven wrong. This excludes long term predictions, thus making it useless for predicting the impacts of global changes such as climate change.

The refutability requirement bears strong similarities to the Popperian definition of the scientific method (see the June 18, 2012 blog), which is also based on refutability. We develop a hypothesis and/or theory based on everything that we know and we test the theory based on predictions for observations that we haven’t yet made. If the tests fail, we change the theory. This amounts to prediction of future results.

Tetlock and Scoblick require arguments to be framed in terms of the immediate actions that need to be taken to mitigate the adverse consequences of our current way of doing business. It reminds me of a famously absurd Jewish folk tale wherein they must test all of the matches in a matchbox to make sure that they all function properly. At the end of the test none of the matches will be able to light a candle.

Another recent Op-Ed in the New York Times advocates that we should stop recycling because the process is expensive and time consuming compared to burying waste or manufacturing new materials:

IF you live in the United States, you probably do some form of recycling. It’s likely that you separate paper from plastic and glass and metal. You rinse the bottles and cans, and you might put food scraps in a container destined for a composting facility. As you sort everything into the right bins, you probably assume that recycling is helping your community and protecting the environment. But is it? Are you in fact wasting your time?

While in the short term that argument might sound compelling, when we look at the future availability of planetary resources, the results of such rhetoric are alarming. If we take into account the growth rates in both global population and standard of living, within a mere century we will have next to no new material left. In terms of multigenerational global sustainability, everything that can be recycled should be recycled. Of course, such a global change of practice requires a long learning period, meaning that we absolutely must start enforcing this action now.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged Adaptation, Anthropogenic, Brundtland report, campaign, carbon dioxide, climate, Climate Change, CO2, could, Debate, Democratization, Economics, Education, Election, Electricity, Emissions, Energy, Environment, forecast, forecasting, Fossil Fuels, Future, GDP, generation, GISS, Global Population, Global Warming, Government, greenhouse gas, Hypothesis, Iran, Iran deal, James Hansen, Jew, Jewish, Karl Popper, leadership, might, Mitigation, NASA, Physics, Policy, politician, Popperian, Population, Power, precise, predict, Prediction, recycle, Recycling, Science, scientific method, Scoblick, specific, Sustainability, Technology, test, Tetlock, vague, Weather, World Population | Leave a comment

The Extended Golden Rule

Posted on October 20, 2015 by climatechangefork

Last week I looked at how Pope Francis used the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt 7:12) as an anchor for his call for global change. I ended with an attempt to extend that fundamental Christian philosophy to include a call for sustainable global interaction with the global energy and water cycles. I said, “humans should move away from their contribution to the energy cycle and play a bigger role in the water cycle.” To use a stronger term (but worse English) – we should get out of the energy cycle and into the water cycle. This blog will expand a bit on these cycles.

If we Google each of them, we get about 500 million entries for the energy cycle and about 50 million for the water cycle. I spoke about these cycles in my book (Climate Change: The Fork at the End of Now – Momentum Press 2011); I am including excerpts here to give more context to my plea from above.

Energy_Cycle Figure 1 – The Energy Cycle (Figure 6.5 in the book)

The full energy budget of Earth is presented in Figure 6.5. The outer atmosphere intercepts 341.3 W/m² solar radiation. For the temperature to remain constant on the average, we need the same amount of energy to be emitted into outer space. About 30% of the incoming radiation is reflected and scattered back into outer space. This percentage is known as the albedo. As we will see shortly, it plays a crucial role in the balance. The remaining 70% is returned to outer space as infrared radiation. Figure 6.5 shows that not only the overall energy flow but also the regional energy flow is balanced in order to have approximately constant temperature on the surface of Earth.

Figure 2 – The Water Cycle

About 70% of the surface of Earth is covered by water. The solar- driven evaporation of water from the oceans is the driving force for the water cycle and is responsible for all the fresh water needed to sustain the biosphere, including humans. As the water evaporates, it rises in the atmosphere together with hot, dry air. As the hot air rises, it moves to regions with lower atmospheric pressure— a process discussed in Chapter 2. In a sense this hot air is performing mechanical work similar to the gas in a car engine that expands by pushing the piston in a cylinder. The energy to perform this mechanical work comes from the internal energy of the humid air, and thus the air’s temperature will fall. As the hot air expands and cools, it can hold less water vapor and eventually becomes saturated. At this point some of the water vapor will condense into tiny water droplets to form clouds (about 1 million cloud droplets are contained in one raindrop). In the presence of small dust particles (0.5– 20 μm in diameter) that can act as condensation seeds, the cloud formation can start below the saturation pressure. Clouds are categorized as low clouds (below 2.5 km above Earth), middle clouds (2.5– 6 km above Earth), or high clouds (above 6 km above Earth). All clouds are white, but when viewed from the ground some appear gray or dark gray according to their depth and shading from the higher clouds. When cloud particles become too heavy to remain suspended, they fall as precipitation in the form of rain or snow. Water that falls on land runs off over the surface as streams, or percolates into the ground to become groundwater. It can return to the atmosphere again by evaporation or transpiration (evaporation of water from plants). Eventually both the surface water and the groundwater find their way back into the oceans.

This cycle is often referred to as the water cycle and is shown schematically in Figure 7.2. The driving force of this cycle is solar energy. The cycle involves redistribution of two key ingredients essential to the survival of much of the biosphere, and as a result, any man- induced climate changes are of major importance. The two key ingredients are water and mineral deposits.

The table (taken from the book as well) shows the Earth’s water distribution.The water cycle is a true cycle in that water is neither being destroyed nor created at any given time (although very small amounts can escape to outer space or the interior of the Earth). There is plenty of water on our planet; the total amount of water on Earth is 1.4 billion km³(USGS) or about 300 million miles³. This amount is equal to about 20% of the weight of the moon. However, most of this water (97%) is ocean salt water, and is not suitable for either irrigation or consumption by humans or land animals. Solar energy evaporates a little bit of the ocean water, leaving the salt behind, and moves some of it to land where it can fall in the form of rain or snow of fresh water. As a result of this process, only a very small amount of fresh water can be captured to be used between people, plants, and animals. This meager amount is nowhere near enough for today’s use. The World Bank defines water stress as availability of less than 1,700m³/ person. Our planet now houses more than 7.3 billion people, and more than 80 countries are suffering from severe water stress. Most of these countries are poor, but important sections of very rich countries suffer from water stress as well – as is the case with California. I have written extensively (mainly in August – December 2013) on this important issue.

Two of the most visible impacts from climate change are sea level rise and changes in the water cycle. In the long term, the remedy to these is to integrate human needs into the water cycle through desalination efforts. This action also serves to integrate the effects of the energy cycle with the water cycle because desalination is an energy intensive process.

In comparison to water, the energy cycle doesn’t look much like a cycle. Solar energy comes from the sun and the infrared radiation escapes to outer space. But as I have mentioned before, the balance between the two forms of radiation has to be kept steady in order to guarantee that the average temperature remains approximately constant, and the climate remains suitable for life on Earth. If this balance is disturbed, the system adjusts by changing the climate. It is not very difficult to conceive of conditions that would bring about such changes that would make it impossible for Earth to sustain its current species. Among the billions of stellar objects around us, we have yet to find life in the universe outside Earth (in spite of quite a lot of searching). We continue to look for feasible places to move when our planet can no longer contain us, but for now we’re stuck here and must therefore look after our home.

Global energy currently uses roughly 0.001% of solar incidence. World energy consumption is 5.6×10²¹ Joules/ year (IEA – 2012). Solar incidence on Earth is 5.7×10¹⁶ Joules/Year (my book). The ratio in % amounts to 0.001%. The amount of energy that we use is not the problem. Instead, we are seriously disturbing the balance by changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere and changing the albedos by creating conditions for snow cover to disappear, for Earth to adjust by raising the temperature.

Mitigating and adapting to anthropogenic global climate change enough for life on Earth to survive longer than a few more generations requires humanity to get out of the energy cycle. This mainly consists of not using fossil-fueled energy, which drastically changes the chemistry of the atmosphere. Instead, in our effort to adapt to the changing climate, we will need to integrate into the water cycle through energy-intensive efforts to desalinate some of the ocean water to meet our needs for fresh water.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged Adaptation, Albedo, Anthropogenic, biosphere, California, Clean Energy, Climate Change, cloud, condensation, Desalination, do unto others, Economics, electrical power, Electricity, Emissions, Energy, energy balance, energy budget, energy cycle, energy flow, Environment, Fossil Fuels, Fresh Water, freshwater, Global Population, Global Warming, golden rule, greenhouse gas, Lake, Mitigation, Ocean, Pope, Pope Francis, Population, Power, Power Plants, rain, river, saltwater, Science, Sea-Level Rise, snow, Solar, Solar Energy, solar radiation, stream, Sustainability, Technology, Temperature, vapor, Water, Water Cycle, water distribution, Water Stress, World Population | Leave a comment

Pope Francis and the Golden Rule

Posted on October 13, 2015 by climatechangefork

On September 24^th, Pope Francis delivered a message to a joint session of the American Congress (September 29, 2015 blog). He anchored his message on the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt 7:12):

This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.

Wikipedia gives us more background on this famous excerpt from the Bible:

Matthew 7:12 is the twelfth verse of the seventh chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. This well known verse presents what has become known as the Golden Rule. In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. The World English Bible translates the passage as: Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Pope Francis framed all of the following issues in terms of the Golden Rule:

Global abolition of the death penalty
The fight against poverty and hunger
Abortion
The creation and distribution of wealth
The responsible use of natural resources
The creation of common goods
Aversion of the environmental deterioration caused by human activities
Appointing leadership in the service of dialogue and peace
Ending armed conflicts
The promotion of traditional families

In a sense, this set of topics mirrors the array shown in the tiles of UN sustainability goals that I discussed last week:

UN_Sustainable Developments copy

One can immediately see that several of these UN goals coincide directly with the topics that Pope Francis addressed. One major difference is that the Pope’s speech featured advocacy for direct and immediate change by individuals, whereas the UN goals necessarily take the shape of global commitments to be accomplished by 2030.

The Golden Rule clearly applies to human connections. We are responsible to each other. I am not here to preach any particular religion (regardless of the fact that I am a Jew) but the anchor of mutual responsibility, independent of national boundaries, should be a universal theme and a driving force for action. It is clearly the power that fuels Pope Francis.

But is it enough?

With a global population of 7 billion (October 2012) and growing, whose wealth is accumulating at an exponential pace (the average global GDP/Capita grew by more than a factor of 10 within my lifetime), the world is now a vastly different place compared to that which existed at the time of the apostles. There is an increased need to extend the Golden Rule to the physical environment around us to ensure survival of future generations well beyond the UN commitment date of 2030.

Meanwhile, there is serious discussion regarding changing the designation of our current era from the Holocene (which traces its beginning to about 12,000 years ago) to a new age called the Anthropocene: “’Officially’ the present epoch will be likely to be declared an Anthropocene. The name Anthropocene is a combination of Greek roots: anthropo- meaning ‘human’ and -cene meaning ‘new’. All epochs in the Cenozoic Era end in ‘-cene’.”

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) is an interdisciplinary body of scientists and humanists working under the umbrella of the International Commission on Stratigraphy and tasked with developing a proposal for the formal ratification of the Anthropocene as an official unit amending the Geological Time Scale. On occasion of its very first meeting, the AWG together with HKW convene a socio- and science-political forum, bringing together scientific experts, political stakeholders, media outlets, and an interested public. The forum presents insights into current scientific findings in defining a global impact of human activities and debates the far-reaching implications of the Anthropocene hypothesis for science and society alike.

Caring for each other in the Anthropocene is not enough. We are part of the physical environment and must care for that as well. As an example, one of the UN goals (goal 6) is to assure clean water for everybody. This is firmly connected to another common goal (2): zero hunger, since the latter cannot happen without sufficient water to grow the necessary food. Seventy percent of the planet is covered with water, but many places – rich and poor – are already suffering from severe water stress when it comes to fresh water; using less water is clearly not the answer. Instead, we have to integrate humanity into the natural cycles.

The two most important cycles to be considered are the energy cycle and the water cycle. The energy cycle depicts the balance between Earth and the sun: our planet radiates approximately the same amount of energy that it receives back into space, a process that makes it habitable. Without this balance, the resulting temperature on Earth would have long since risen above levels suitable for human survival. The water cycle is a true, as well as closed cycle. Water evaporates from the ocean using energy from the sun. The weather system drives some of the water vapor to land. The clouds that carry the water release it in the form of rain or snow, and the water eventually flows through various routes such as rivers back to the oceans. Only about 1% of the planet’s liquid water is fresh water suitable for direct human use. Water stress does not come from water shortage, but rather from a shortage of fresh water.

My humble extension of the Golden Rule is that humans should move away from their contribution to the energy cycle and play a bigger role in the water cycle.

In the next blog I will give a more detailed description of how humans already participate in these cycles, as well as the required timing necessary to further integrate with them in the most beneficial way.

Posted in Climate Change | Tagged 2030, Anthropocene, apostle, AWG, Bible, Climate Change, Congress, Economics, Energy, energy cycle, Environment, GDP, Global Population, Global Warming, goal, golden rule, Physical Environment, Pope, Pope Francis, Population, Power, Salt Water, Science, Solar, Solar Energy, Sustainability, UN, United Nations, Water, Water Cycle, Water Stress, Wealth, World Population | Leave a comment

The World Speaks: We want Everything for Everybody – Now!

Posted on October 6, 2015 by climatechangefork

I am starting to write this blog on Thursday, October 1^st. Pope Francis is back home in the Vatican, President Xi has returned to China, and most of the 150 or so world leaders that spoke in the United Nations’ 70^th session and signed the global sustainable development agenda, are also on their way home. Now it’s time to start analyzing, contemplating and exploring the effects of their visits. I will start this week with a look at the new United Nations Sustainable Events declaration.

The declaration came out with 17 sustainable development goals for 2030 and 169 targets. The goals, in the form of attractive colorful tiles are given below:

These new goals and targets replace the Millennium Development Goals that were formulated in 2000.

The goals, the targets and the preamble to the agenda are published in a document that is too long to be reproduced here. The rest of the blog will summarize what I consider to be the essence of this document with a focus on sustainability of the physical environment.

More than 150 world leaders out of the 193 member states of the UN signed the document as representatives of their countries. I didn’t see accounts of the representatives of the 43 countries from which leaders were not able to attend. Nevertheless I consider the broad participation and the power and scope of the participants reflective of a legitimate voice for humanity.

The stated goals are to be implemented by 2030. I consider this time period shorter than my definition of “Now” that I use in my book, Climate Change: The Fork at the End of Now (This blog derives its name from the book’s title.), where I equate it to the projected lifespan of my teenaged grandchildren.

The preamble to the document recognizes that the goals are not independent of each other:

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this universal agenda seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

It adds:

Planet

We are determined to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can support the needs of the present and future generations.

33. We recognize that social and economic development depends on the sustainable management of our planet’s natural resources. We are therefore determined to conserve and sustainably use oceans and seas, freshwater resources, as well as forests, mountains and drylands and to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife. We are also determined to promote sustainable tourism, tackle water scarcity and water pollution, to strengthen cooperation on desertification, dust storms, land degradation and drought and to promote resilience and disaster risk reduction. In this regard, we look forward to COP13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity to be held in Mexico in 2016.

Among the 17 goal I will enumerate the targets that are connected with accomplishing goal #6 (clean water), goal #13 (climate action) and goal #17 (partnership):

Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.

6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally

6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity

6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate.

6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes

6.a By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies.

6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*

13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning

13.a Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible

13.b Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized Communities.

* Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Finance

17.1 Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection

17.2 Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment bymany developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 percent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries

17.3 Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources

17.4 Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress

17.5 Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries.

Technology

17.6 Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism

17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed.

17.8 Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology

Capacity-building

17.9 Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation.

Trade

17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda.

17.11 Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020.

17.12 Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access

Systemic issues

Policy and institutional coherence

17.13 Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence.

17.14 Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.

17.15 Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development Multi-stakeholder partnerships.

17.16 Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.

17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.

The strength of this pronouncement, in my opinion, lies in its global focus. However, global pronouncements of this magnitude require major compromises among the participating signatories in order to work. I suspect that these compromises will make up the framework required to enforce such a vision. These include population planning, research, and development to facilitate economic progress using sustainable tools. They also call for a more active role on the part of developing countries, which must contribute to the pattern of sustainable growth by way of the use of both domestic resources and good trade patterns with developed countries. More next week.

Posted in Climate Change | 1 Comment

ClimateChangeFork

Paris: COP21-Decisions and Issues

Paris – The Beginning

Paris: Measurements for the Future

COP21 and Paris – Evaluation of Commitments

China – Cap and Trade With Babies?

On the Way to Paris

Working for a Better Future

Pope Francis and the Golden Rule

The World Speaks: We want Everything for Everybody – Now!

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

About Micha

CCF around the Web

My Favorite Climate Change Sites

Publications

Social Media

Meta