UN Climate Change Summit 2015 - Perspectives from Manchester Energy

The upcoming UN Climate Change Summit in Paris may be a defining moment in the work to establish consensus on our global response to the challenges of climate change. On this page you will find ongoing updates and perspectives around the summit, from academics affiliated to Manchester Energy.

The Paris climate change negotiations and 2°C: a view from the coal-face

As the Paris COP21 negotiations continue, Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, who is in France for the conference, gives his views.

Professor Kevin Anderson

Paris will witness frenetic discussion centred ostensibly on the long-established 2°C temperature threshold between ‘acceptable’ and ‘dangerous’ climate change. However, as a citizen concerned with the moral framing of climate change, I consider the 2°C increase above the pre-industrial average as too high. It is not a safe threshold. Many people will die as a consequence of a 2°C rise – they will typically be poor, very low emitters, non-white and living in climatically vulnerable parts of the southern hemisphere. And if we’re brutally honest, us high carbon emitters simply do not care. We consider our business-class flights, powerful cars and high-carbon homes are far more important than the lives of those eking out a living in already challenging circumstances.

As an academic who works intimately on issues of mitigation within our rapidly dwindling carbon budgets, I conclude the best that Paris can now deliver is a very slim chance of holding the rise in temperature below 2°C. In 2015, our prolonged and abject failure on climate change has squandered most of the 2°C budget. We’re now well into injury time. The carbon emissions this year will be over 60% higher than at the time of the first IPCC report on climate change in 1990 – a quarter of a century of fine oratory, vacuous promises and complete inaction. And next year the emissions will be higher still.

Consequently, if 2°C is to be anything more than a rhetorical excuse for another international jamboree, Paris needs to deliver rates of mitigation far beyond the unscientific and inequitable levels voluntarily offered by national governments. Moreover, world leaders and many within the scientific community must cease their Machiavellian substitution of real and politically difficult action today for Dr Strangelove engineering tomorrow. We need a radical plan for deep and immediate reductions in emissions by wealthy high-emitters now – not evermore speculative technologies for sucking the carbon out of the atmosphere in decades to come. But let us be clear, it is this latter ruse that underpins the naïve and dangerously misleading optimism in the run-up to Paris.

So where to from here? Horse-trading, short-term political one-upmanship and late night deals will fail – though no doubt a Chamberlain-esque agreement would be held aloft and proudly heralded as an important step forward. But the climate will not be so easily appeased. If the global community is to deliver on its 2°C commitment, leaders in Paris must demonstrate courage, collegiality and candour – in short, leadership.

This blog post originally appeared in a Policy@Manchester blog post.

Perspective: Is the IPCC overly optimistic on our climate?

Professor Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, will be attending the Climate Change Conference in Paris this December. He has a stark warning about the future of our climate.

Professor Kevin Anderson

In June 2000 scientists attended a major climate conference as a prelude to the political negotiations in Paris in December. After four days of presentations the conference committee concluded that limiting “warming to less than 2 °C” is “economically feasible” and “cost effective.”

This conclusion chimed with a headline statement from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that “to keep a good chance of staying below 2 °C, and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40–70 per cent globally between 2010 and 2050, falling to zero or below by 2100”. Importantly, the IPCC also stressed how costs of mitigation would be so low that “global economic growth would not be strongly affected.”

The conference committee and IPCC statements are, in my opinion, dangerously misleading – offering optimistic political spin rather than reasoned assessments of the science and mitigation challenges. Their up-beat messages suggest the 2 °C target requires an accelerated, but still evolutionary, move away from fossil fuels; they notably do not call for an immediate and revolutionary transition in how we use and produce energy.

The IPCC’s support of an incremental and technical low-carbon transition is premised on two questionable assumptions. First, and contrary to the data, CO2 emissions reached a global peak in 2010 and, second, there will be a large-scale rollout of speculative technologies intended to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

In plain language, all the IPCC scenarios for a 50% or better chance of meeting the 2 °C target rely on either an ability to change the past, or the successful and large-scale uptake of negative-emission technologies. A significant proportion depends on both.

In stark contrast and building on the concept of carbon budgets, I present an alternative scenario that suggests a radically different challenge to those dominating discussions on climate change.

As the IPCC reiterates, it is cumulative emissions of CO2 that matter in determining how much the planet warms by 2100. Specifically the IPCC concludes that 1,000 Gt of CO2 can be emitted between 2011 and 2100 for a “likely” of remaining below a 2°C rise.

However, between 2011 and 2014 CO2 emissions from energy alone amounted to about 140 Gt of CO2. To limit warming to below 2°C, the remaining 860 Gt of CO2 (out to 2100) must be considered in relation to the three major emission sources; cement manufacture, land-use change and, most importantly, energy production.

For energy, the severity of 2°C mitigation excludes the use of fossil fuels, even with carbon capture and storage (CCS), as a dominant post-2050 energy source. Delivering on 2 °C cannot be reconciled with high-level claims that in moving to a low-carbon energy system “global economic growth would not be strongly affected.” Certainly it would be inappropriate to sacrifice improvements in the welfare of the global poor, including those within wealthier nations, for the sake of reducing carbon emissions.

 

 

But this only puts greater pressure on the lifestyles of the relatively small proportion of the globe’s population with higher emissions — pressure that cannot be massaged away through incremental escapism and technical utopias. With annual economic growth of 3%, the reduction in carbon intensity of global gross domestic product would need to be nearer 13% per year. Put simply, to avoid imposing devastating climate impacts on poor, vulnerable and low-emitting communities, we wealthier and typically high-emitting individuals need to make deep and immediate cuts in both the energy we use and in the level of goods we consume – at least until the transition away from fossil fuels is complete.

The IPCC’s Synthesis Report and the scientific framing of the mitigation challenge in terms of carbon budgets are important steps forward. As scientists, we must now leverage the clarity gained by the budget concept to combat the almost global-scale cognitive dissonance in acknowledging its quantitative implications. Yet, so far, we simply have not been prepared to accept the revolutionary implications of our own findings, and even when we do we are reluctant to voice such thoughts openly. Instead, my long-standing engagement with many colleagues in science leaves me in no doubt that although they work diligently, often against a backdrop of organized scepticism, many are ultimately choosing to censor their own research.

It is not our job to be politically expedient with our analysis or to curry favour with our funders. Whether our conclusions are liked or not is irrelevant. Yet, as we evoke a deus ex machina (such as speculative negative emissions or changing the past) to ensure our analyses conform to today’s political and economic hegemony, we do society a grave disservice — the repercussions of which will be irreversible.

This blog post is adapted from an article published in Nature Geosciences, and originally appeared in a Policy@Manchester blog post.

Upcoming Seminar

"Adequacy and Equity under Neoliberal Climate Governance: Assessing the Paris Moment"

Monday 23rd November (room C1, George Begg Building, Sackville Street) at 4.30pm

J. Timmons Roberts, Brown University, USA

What are the prospects for the Paris climate change negotiations? Based on the new book Power in a Warming World (MIT Press, September), this talk reviews Paris and previous rounds of climate negotiations by their level of adequacy to avert the worst impacts of climate change and whether their process and implications are equitable. The voluntary INDC pledging process and the importance of bilateral and “minilateral” announcements reveal a turn to inequitable and undemocratic but somewhat more adequate outcomes, from exclusive inaction towards exclusive action. The talk assesses some of the implications of the Paris moment for developing countries and civil society campaigners focused on fair burden sharing and democratic process.

The seminar will take place in room C1, in the George Begg Building on Sackville Street- the George Begg Building is number 17 on the map here.

Please RSVP, or contact Amrita with any queries: amrita.sidhu@manchester.ac.uk

Tyndall Centre Mock Climate Change Summit

In preparation for the upcoming UN climate change summit, in Paris in November, the Tyndall Centre recently ran another in a series of mock versions of the event.

This time around University of Manchester Staff and Faculty were able to take on the roles of member-states involved in these crucial talks, each briefed on their political and economic circumstances, and keen to defend their interests while trying to reach a consensus with the rest.

The debate surrounded both the timing of commitments to curtail each nation’s carbon emissions, and also the shared investment of a $100bn into a fund to support poorer nations, so they can develop as low-carbon nations. 

Read More...
▲ Up to the top