How carbon budgets can change climate negotiations

September 25, 2014, Victoria University

Credit: Alfred Palmer/Wikipedia
(Phys.org) —This week in New York, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is hosting a Climate Summit. The Summit aims to 'catalyse action' on climate change among the 120 or so Heads of State in attendance. The Summit will build on both the recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a new report on the economics of it all from a commission headed by former Mexican President Felipe Calderón.

To the extent that these reports set the scene for governments and negotiators, the most important recent innovation is the adoption of a 'cumulative emissions' approach to emissions of carbon dioxide. Writing in Nature Geoscience this week, we and our Oxford colleague, Myles Allen, argue that though this promises to challenge negotiators in the short term, in the longer term it ought to help them focus on the things that matter most.

Research over the last few years has made it clear that the relationship between cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide and global mean temperature is surprisingly straightforward, and highly policy relevant.

The cumulative approach also makes it clear that for any given temperature target, such as the 2 degrees Celsius target used in United Nations talks, there is a total amount of carbon dioxide that can be burned.

The virtue here is clarity. By finding a simpler way to express the overall scale of the problem, the report gives governments and other players less room to pretend that opportunistic or short-term tweaks to emissions paths are sufficient to meet the goals they have set themselves.

The cumulative approach also puts the principal culprit in the dock: to meet the global goals we have set ourselves we have to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Other gases matter to varying extents—a point which is very relevant to New Zealand and other agricultural exporters—but you cannot expect to solve the problem of climate change without eventually halting or capturing emissions of carbon dioxide.

Unsurprisingly, large countries account for a large fraction of emissions: around 10 countries account for 60 percent of emissions. Because we cannot hope to deal with climate change without those emissions shrinking radically, those countries will have to make deep cuts to their emissions, or we will fail to meet the goals agreed by the international community.

This tension will bring pressure onto all major emitters, but especially onto fast-growing economies in the developing world—those which couple huge populations with rapidly rising economic (and hence energy) growth.

Collectively, in the 21st century, these countries' emissions are larger, and hence more important, than the emissions of either the developed world, or of the world's poor countries. The politics of the negotiations, together with a focus on near-term Kyoto-style targets, have obscured this fact.

But when you look at the cumulative emissions numbers it is obvious that the large emerging economies—Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and others—are going to have to make reductions sooner rather than later. This does not let New Zealand or anyone else off the hook. But it's now incontrovertible that the world cannot avoid significant climate change without these countries' early and active participation in climate mitigation initiatives.

By bringing the centrality of cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide more clearly into the picture, the IPCC will put pressure on those countries which will have the most impact on 21st century climate change. That is a welcome new development, and one which might actually matter for the negotiations.

Successful attempts by some governments to fudge this inconvenient truth in the widely-used summary of the IPCC's report suggest these issues have a long way to run. But by pointing out that over the long run, net have to go to zero to achieve already agreed climate goals, scientists have reduced the scope for political gamesmanship and deals about irrelevant details. These are good things.

Explore further: Calculating the cumulative cost of carbon dioxide emissions

More information: Cumulative emissions and climate policy, Nature Geoscience (2014) DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2254

Related Stories

Ditching coal a massive step to climate goal: experts

September 22, 2014

Phasing out coal as an electricity source by 2050 would bring the world 0.5 degrees Celsius closer to the UN's targeted cap for climate warming, an analysis said on the eve of Tuesday's UN climate summit.

Climate: Now to turn summit prose into action

September 25, 2014

Having renewed their commitment to saving Earth's climate, governments face daunting challenges in the coming months to draft a global pact and set targets for slashing carbon emissions, analysts said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Galactic center visualization delivers star power

March 21, 2019

Want to take a trip to the center of the Milky Way? Check out a new immersive, ultra-high-definition visualization. This 360-movie offers an unparalleled opportunity to look around the center of the galaxy, from the vantage ...

Ultra-sharp images make old stars look absolutely marvelous

March 21, 2019

Using high-resolution adaptive optics imaging from the Gemini Observatory, astronomers have uncovered one of the oldest star clusters in the Milky Way Galaxy. The remarkably sharp image looks back into the early history of ...

Physicists reveal why matter dominates universe

March 21, 2019

Physicists in the College of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University have confirmed that matter and antimatter decay differently for elementary particles containing charmed quarks.

26 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2014
But by pointing out that over the long run, net carbon dioxide emissions have to go to zero to achieve already agreed climate goals, scientists have reduced the scope for political gamesmanship and deals about irrelevant details.


And since reduction of carbon emissions to zero is equivalent to the destruction of civilization, is it time for Chicken Little to be muzzled?
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2014
I think only idiots, communists, socialist, and progressives still believe in AWG.

Mind you the environment would do better if the Environmentalists radicals are banned from gathering. When ever they have a march or a large gathering, litter is strewn everywhere, massive amounts of CO2 is released by all the Hypocritical Profits flying in on Private Jets and driving monster vehicles to the gathering(so they can tell everyone else they need to pay indulgences to them to make amends for their sin, and that everyone else needs to sacrifice), huge amounts of pot is smoked (Pot growing is very destructive to the environment), local vegetation is destroyed by vandalism.

The main point is, if you are not a rich profit of global warming, and you still support the cause, you are an idiot.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2014
"I think only idiots, communists, socialist, and progressives still believe in AWG"

Freefromthinking: You left scientists off the list. 97% of them believe in AGW.

Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2014
dogbert muttered mumbled or compained arbitrarily
And since reduction of carbon emissions to zero is equivalent to the destruction of civilization, is it time for Chicken Little to be muzzled?
Proof, evidence, article from a meteorologist or climate scientist ?

Anything to support your random blurt ?

Nature is never carbon negative though it might be carbon neutral, easily doable just takes focus & political will and saves the negative effects of higher CO2...

@freethinking.
You are obviously not free from comfirmational bias & propaganda with your blurt
I think only idiots, communists, socialist, and progressives still believe in AWG
This Proves you dont/cant think...

As mentioned before and YOU should know its about evidence not idle lazy belief - grow up !
teslaberry
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2014
the world is descending to currency warfare, and trade war and a perpetual war for petrodollar pipeline hegemony.

these wars are only ratcheting to get worse. the u.n. may continue to gain relevance as a podium during this time, but the same forces breaking down the league of nations are now breaking down the u.n. because the powers that rule the west are going broke and their only way to guaratnee profiteability is to instigate warfare and anti-competitive , competitive, trade and currency behavior.

'cooperation' to tax one another, decide energy policy, and sell one another 'carbon credits' which are nothing more than another financial paper security worth toilet paper-------is breaking down. the farce of cooperation is just another conduit by which the west seeks to control the developing world, particularly the juggernauts of india and china.

so long as the west continues to invest money in them, they will nod and smile regarding climate change 'cooperation' efforts.
freethinking
1 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2014
Thermo et al..... sorry to say that only people who believe in AGW are idiots, I should have said only people who believe in AGW and the myth that 97% of scientist believe in AGW

http://online.wsj...13553136

Progressives, Homosexual activists, Communist, Muslim extremists, Radical Environmentalists, have in common? A lot, especially their propensity to repeat lies
NOM
5 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2014
Nice of you to interrupt your banjo practice to comment freefromthought.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2014
freethinking proves he has no understanding of basic physics with
Thermo et al..... sorry to say that only people who believe in AGW are idiots, I should have said only people who believe in AGW and the myth that 97% of scientist believe in AGW
You really are a paid piece of work, you must therefore be claiming some conspiracy or collective ignoring of physics if everyone is,lying about AGW. Answer this question, from your education ?

"How can adding a greenhouse gas with known thermal properties NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Do you even know what thermal properties are ?

Do you know what resistivity is ?

How is it possible to coordinate the several thousands of educated people to believe the same thing if there is no conspiracy, what foundation are they basing their 'lie' upon ?

Tell us why we should ignore the property of 'specific heat' then ?
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2014
How is it possible to coordinate the several thousands of educated people to believe the same thing if there is no conspiracy, what foundation are they basing their 'lie' upon ?


The lie is simply AGW and the use of AGW as a tool to advance the socialist agenda of redistribution of resources.

It has never been about climate -- climate is only the tool. It has always been about redistribution of resources.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2014
dogbert proves he has never understood physics, his best answer to my question is
The lie is simply AGW and the use of AGW as a tool to advance the socialist agenda of redistribution of resources.
You havent answered the question dogbert !

Where is the physics that underlies the records ?

dogbert STILL hasnt answered my question
How is it possible to coordinate the several thousands of educated people to believe the same thing if there is no conspiracy, what foundation are they basing their 'lie' upon ?
Why dogbert can't you understand or answer the question.

Does this dogbert, prove you have no education or understanding of physics ?

Show us some actual evidence that greenhouse gases offer NO increase in thermal resistivity ?

Do you even know what 'thermal resistivity' is dogbert ?

Education is so important, then you can't be misled by dicks claiming AGW has no foundation or is a lie ?

Do you think dogbert ?
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2014
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace gas in Earth's atmosphere currently constituting about 0.04%.The earth had CO2 constituting 0.3 to 0.6% or for AGW nuts 10 to 15 times more than we currently have. 97% of scientists do not believe in AGW (contrary to what Profits of AGW say), The science isn't settled.

So before you AGW lemmings starts paying Alms to your rich, private jet flying, monster car driving, multi-mega mansion owning, hypocritical AGW Profits of doom, you might want to learn a bit about what you fear the most.
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2014
So AGW believers, my question to you is, Why after 20 years none of your models have predicted our current weather patterns? Weren't we told we would be having more hurricanes and the hurricanes would be worse? Weren't we told arctic ice would be gone by now? Weren't we told temperatures would be much higher by now? But we have had a 20 year hiatus in temp rising, and what all the record cold. Yet you guys keep saying the science is settled, while your hypocritical leaders and profits expend Co2 like it's going out of style while they demand the destruction of the economy and payments to them and their "green" corporations to lower CO2 emissions.

http://www.climat...-by-25f/

Progressives, Islamist, Democrats and radical Environmentalists have many things in common. One of the biggest is they lie with a straight face and they demand unquestioning obedience.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2014
Mike Massen,
You havent answered the question dogbert !


I did answer the question you asked. I answered it precisely and you even quoted my answer.

The question you asked:
How is it possible to coordinate the several thousands of educated people to believe the same thing if there is no conspiracy, what foundation are they basing their 'lie' upon ?


My answer, which you also quoted:
The lie is simply AGW and the use of AGW as a tool to advance the socialist agenda of redistribution of resources.


Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2014
dogbert proves he cant communicate effectively or attempts to provoke with..

I did answer the question you asked. I answered it precisely and you even quoted my answer.
.. The lie is simply AGW and the use of AGW as a tool to advance the socialist agenda of redistribution of resources.
dogbert you have real problems of understanding English.

I asked HOW you answered by repeating a claim, that does not state HOW.

HOW are the thousands of educated people coordinated ?

Eg. Is it by telephone, internet, letters, conferences etc And obviously to 'coordinate' there would need to be some central authority, where & what is this ?

dogbert, have you ever considered the base foundations of physics, eg Heat, ie Statistical Mechanics, specific heat.

dogbert trying to be obtuse proves you are not educated well enough to engage in any sort fo debate, it makes you like a robot unable to think rationally from any foundation !

Eg. What is foundation for warming of oceans & massive ice melt ?
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2014
Mike Massen,
OK. Lets try this again. You asked:
How is it possible to coordinate the several thousands of educated people to believe the same thing if there is no conspiracy, what foundation are they basing their 'lie' upon ?


I answered:
The lie is simply AGW and the use of AGW as a tool to advance the socialist agenda of redistribution of resources.


Your question was "what foundation are they basing their 'lie' upon ?" and I answered that question. The lie is based upon "AGW as a tool to advance the socialist agenda of redistribution of resources."

Now you want to know how socialists communicate with each other. I don't know that but certain past disclosures of communications between people on climate committees indicate that email may be used extensively. Why don't you tell us so we don't have to guess?

howhot2
4 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2014
@Freestink smells this
Progressives, Homosexual activists, Communist, Muslim extremists, Radical Environmentalists, have in common? A lot, especially their propensity ...

My, what a queer man you are.
[qProgressives, Islamist, Democrats and radical Environmentalists have many things in common. One of the biggest is they
My, what a queer man you are.

Just reading your rant is like looking at someone else's turd. Not pleasant.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2014
Howhot, we know there are paid progressives government trolls on this sight, I'm wondering how much you get paid to post?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2014
dogbert proves he has considerable misunderstanding with
Now you want to know how socialists communicate with each other. I don't know that but certain past disclosures of communications between people on climate committees indicate that email may be used extensively..
You are wrong, I have never referenced socialists.
I asked about educated people ie Those that studied at university, core subjects such as physics, chemistry & mathematics, basics of Science.

I asked you how they coordinate, you replied with
The lie is simply AGW and the use of AGW...
You missed the core aspect of coordination, ie. communications & not just the means, the methodology.

All u have done is repeat the claim; "The lie is simply AGW..", this clearly does not answer my question.

However, lets assume you are correct, why then would so many educated people accept "The lie is simply AGW..." without any evidence ?

Were they hypnotised ?

Did they ignore training in mathematics, physics & chemistry ?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2014
freethinking proves he confuses weather & climate with
So AGW believers, my question to you is, Why after 20 years none of your models have predicted our current weather patterns?
Weather is reasonably well predicted to ~3 to 5 days.

Climate however, is about modelling heat flow over much longer periods.

Climate models are NOT localised weather predictors, understand ?

Please answer the question (caution: University training in physics is necessary to understand it's context & breadth);

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere, with known thermal properties of re-radiation, NOT increase thermal resistivity at all ?

freethinking did you ever get any high school education in:-

a.Statistical Mechanics
b.Comparative Specific Heats in climate system
c.Mathematics of Calculus

If you answer yes to even one of above 3 questions then please explain why you dismiss CO2, with its irrefutable thermal properties, as being a contributor to global heat retention ?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2014
Howhot, we know there are paid progressives government trolls on this sight, I'm wondering how much you get paid to post
@freefromthought
1- it is "SITE", NOT "Sight"
2- personal conjecture
3- we also know FOR A FACT that there are idiots on this SITE who are paid by Koch brothers and big oil, as well as big business and those with a vested interest in making more money by undermining the science... we know this because there was a STUDY that PROVED IT EMPIRICALLY
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

because you always post drivel and cannot refute the science, this would suggest that you are being paid to undermine the science... this would also suggest you are stupid, but at least you are compensated for that, huh?

only the insane and blatantly stupid will follow the idiot TROLL like you rather than the SCIENCE... and that is why we have an anti-AGW crowd here
the PAID and the STUPID
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2014
Unlike you captin, I have to work to make a living, so many times I'm rushing to make a comments, and make typo's.

But It's amusing that Progressives such as you and other PPGTs (which you may be a part of) keep pointing at Koch's brothers and big oil keep, when it is known and proven, and has been shown over and over again, that the DNC, government agencies, George Soros, and many other Progressive organizations actually do pay people like you to put talking points onto sites.

So here is a test to see if you are not a PPGT. Answer this question, what policies do you not agree with Obama on? Careful, you might lose your pay check or at least have the IRS audit you, or the DOJ investigate you.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2014
WEBMD getting paid to promote Obamacare
http://freebeacon...amacare/

Information on Government trolls
http://www.wnd.co...covered/

More on Government trolls:
http://21stcentur...re-real/

how Paid Progressive trolls operate:
http://www.wnd.co...ith-wnd/
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2014
Howhot, we know there are paid progressives government trolls on this sight, I'm wondering how much you get paid to post?

Hahahaha ... your such a dim wit. If I made what you made, then we are even aren't we.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2014
freethinking spouts bad opinion, ignores Science
So here is a test to see if you are not a PPGT. Answer this question, what policies do you not agree with Obama on? Careful, you might lose your pay check or at least have the IRS audit you, or the DOJ investigate you.
Such nonsense has nothing useful for any convergence to arrive at an intrinsic truth.

The Educated who become scientists & debate focus on convergence.

Property of the uneducated often, is to point to opinion as it its a real quantity, when it can only lead to another & often more provocative opinion.

Science however, follows a discipline, in that discipline, in respect of global warming, are certain foundations, none of which freethinking has ever dealt with !

freethinking made a nick as ident of character, it may be true you are free to think on any topic with any opinion & without discipline, not good !

It's only through discipline underlying evidentiary nature of science which allows humans to advance.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2014
I have to work to make a living, so many times I'm rushing to make a comments, and make typo's
@freefromthought
and spell check is free... all you gotta do is use it
the DNC, government agencies, George Soros, and many other Progressive organizations actually do pay people like you to put talking points onto sites
and it is "amusing" that I give you empirical evidence in the form of a peer reviewed publication from a reputable source and you give me personal conjecture supported only by your delusional thought process and crackpot extremist sites.
I am not a progressive
nor conservative
nor anything else
So here is a test to see
We already went through this on another thread; you asked and I answered - so this is crossover, spam and trolling
and reported

You better be asking to get paid per post because if you are getting paid by the content... you're an epic failure

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2014
You know folks, when you argue with someone who has been brainwashed with this anti-democracy rightwing BS like @freestink, (a guy who is certainly an A-hole in real life; you know the "Get of my lawn" type), these kind of folks are hard to reason with.

When these GOP plants are that brainwashed, no reasoning will effect their opinion. In their mind, what they say is truth, and science goes to the wayside, unless it profits them. In the meantime, these profiteers of anti-environmentalism have taken over social media push an agenda that will lead to a more miserable, overcrowded, and desperate world. Do you really want this?

The only steady hand on the science, facts and action have been the Democrats. Lets all see how long the GOP will last without science.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.