Interview: EU climate boss says emissions cuts not enough

October 12, 2015 byKarl Ritter
Interview: EU climate boss says emissions cuts not enough
European Union Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete gestures during an interview with the Associated Press at the Sofitel Hotel in Rabat, Morocco, Monday, Oct. 12, 2015. Europe's climate chief has acknowledged for the first time that climate pledges made by national governments ahead of a major U.N. conference fall short of meeting the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). (AP Photo/Abdeljalil Bounhar)

Europe's climate chief has acknowledged for the first time that climate pledges made by national governments ahead of a major U.N. conference fall short of meeting the international goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said the EU's projections show the current pledges to curb greenhouse gas emissions would put world on a path toward 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming.

That's a level that scientists say could result in dangerous changes in the Earth's climate system, such as rising seas flooding coastal areas and small island nations.

Canete said the fact that almost 150 countries have made pledges ahead of a December climate conference in Paris is "an extraordinary result"—but not enough.

"In some G20 countries, there is margin of maneuver to increase the level of ambition," he said, referring to the Group of 20 major economies.

Canete didn't rule out improving the European Union's own target of reducing emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, even though he called it the "most ambitious" of all.

"At the moment, we come along with this target to the talks," he said, speaking on the sidelines of a climate conference in Rabat. "Let's see what is in the final version."

Interview: EU climate boss says emissions cuts not enough
European Union Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete gestures during an interview with the Associated Press at the Sofitel Hotel in Rabat, Morocco, Monday, Oct. 12, 2015. Europe's climate chief has acknowledged for the first time that climate pledges made by national governments ahead of a major U.N. conference fall short of meeting the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). (AP Photo/Abdeljalil Bounhar)

Canete noted the target of the EU—the world's third biggest greenhouse gas polluter—didn't include international credits for funding to reduce emissions in developing countries "which opens the possibility of raising the level of ambition."

The deal envisioned in Paris would be the first where all countries, both rich and poor, commit to take action to fight global warming, which scientists say is chiefly caused by burning fossil fuels.

To make sure that temperatures don't rise more than 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times—they are already almost halfway there—the Paris deal should include a mechanism to review emissions targets every five years, Canete said.

The EU position wants the first review in 2025 but Canete indicated an earlier date was not out of the question. "The date is not so important," he added. "The important thing is to have a permanent mechanism of raising ambition periodically."

Climate policy expert Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute, a Washington-based environmental think tank, said the date of the first review after Paris is quite significant.

"Science tells us we cannot wait 10 years, especially noting how much more there is to be done," Morgan said.

European Union Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete gestures during an interview with the Associated Press at the Sofitel Hotel in Rabat, Morocco, Monday, Oct. 12, 2015. Europe's climate chief has acknowledged for the first time that climate pledges made by national governments ahead of a major U.N. conference fall short of meeting the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). (AP Photo/Abdeljalil Bounhar)

Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum, who was unable to travel to Rabat because of a storm battering the Pacific nation, said locking in the current emissions targets would spell disaster.

"Without much more urgent and ambitious action, my country simply won't survive," he said in a statement.

All major economies have presented emissions pledges for after 2020 as part of negotiations for the Paris deal but they all look different. Developed countries including the U.S. and the EU have pledged absolute reductions in emissions, while China has vowed to peak its emissions by 2030 and India has pledged to reduce its emissions per unit of gross domestic product.

Saudi Arabia and other oil and gas-producing countries in the Middle East are among those that haven't proposed any targets yet.

"I had talks with Saudi Arabia last week in Istanbul and they told me they will be coming along with their (target) in due course," Canete said. "I'm confident that (it) will arrive before Paris."

Explore further: EU targets 40% cut in emissions by 2030

Related Stories

EU targets 40% cut in emissions by 2030

September 18, 2015

EU ministers on Friday formally agreed the bloc's negotiating mandate for the upcoming climate talks in Paris, including a 40-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 over 1990 levels.

EU slams top economies on climate summit targets

August 20, 2015

The EU on Thursday urged India, Indonesia, Brazil and other major economies to immediately submit their emissions reductions targets to help avoid failure at the UN climate summit in Paris later this year.

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

17 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2015
I am not sure we can avoid a tragic end to this climate change we have initiated. Our climate is the result of complex interactions between many dynamic systems. They may vary, but usually remain in a relatively stable state.

We have changed the inputs, and have destabilized the climate. It may oscillate between extremes before it settles into another stable state, which may not be conducive to our survival.

This is not politics, it is science. It is a matter of our survival.
mikedalyllama
1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2015
^you don't think that cutting emissions ahead of alternate energy sources coming online is a good idea? Enjoy "survival" at triple current energy costs... Meanwhile China promises to stop eventually and Saudi Arabia will try to set a goal too...they are fudging the numbers...climate gate 1&2 look it up....the data is not showing warming ...hence the need to rebrand from global warming to "climate change" . Planet has cooled over the last 17 years...also what about all the chem trails in the sky ?! Where does that fit in to our climate crisis...oh yea I forgot nobody wants to admit geoengineering is going on...it's not weird or anything...I'm sure the chem trails don't effect weather....lol
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2015
China is one of the biggest polluters in both CO2 and particulates, because they have no regulations and out-dated technology (apparently).

There were supposed to be some sort of agreement between China and Australia to build a massive system of solar farms in Australia and transmit the energy to China, apparently to replace some of their Coal usage. I haven't heard anything about this proposed project in quite some time now. Part of the problem is Austrailia has Coal as one of their major exports, so the project would undermine their existing energy trade, which must not be very appealing to them at all.

A similar project had been proposed between Europe and Norther African nations, but that deal seems to have fallen through as well.

Returners
1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2015
greenhouse gas emissions would put world on a path toward 3 degrees Celsius...blah, blah, etc


I don't believe that, because temperature and pressure are related. The amount of atmospheric mass increase from burning oxygen combined with hydrocarbons to replace atmospheric O2 with H2O and CO2 produces an insignificant molar mass change as a fraction of the entire atmosphere, because a couple hundred Parts Per Million is literally less than a drop in a bucket.

The temperature curve is currently not growing as fast as the models of the alleged CO2 and Methane GHG models predict it should grow, and yet they keep insisting that the majority of the warming trend is caused by man-made GHG....if that were true then why the hell has the warming stopped even as CO2 increased another ~35ppm and Methane increased several parts per billion? Methane accumulation had slowed coincidentally with the Kyoto Protocol, however that is coincidence..cont...
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2015
I read from one fo the climate experts one time that the slowing of the Methane curve coinciding with the Kyoto Protocol was an unrelated event, and that the cause of the slowing of the Methane Curve is unknown.

A NOAA 3d map of the Methane Concentration shows a nearly 200 unit spike in amount starting with the 30N and continuing to the N. Pole.

http://www.esrl.n...ane.html
cont.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2015
Mike, please tell me what is in the alleged "chemtrails", and who is doing it, and why.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2015
If the Methane is coming from Domestic food production, such as livestock animals (but they said cause of hiatus was unknown), then why does it all collect above 30N?

What? They raise cattle in tropics and in southern hemisphere too: in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, parts of Africa, Southern Asia, Australia...

Their cows don't fart or something?

I know what it is...conservation of angular momentum combined with the ITCZ. It makes it hard for CO2 and Methane to mix into the southern hemisphere, even though they should readily mix via diffusion. Seriously, most of the worlds poulation is in the N. Hemosphere, but most of them are not all above 30N. India and S. China and arabia region is at or below 30N, and they are total over 1/3rd world population.

I would suggest that this is not man-made methane, but is instead microbe-made methane.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2015
We know the Methane comes from Methane Torches in the Arctic, which Diver-collected data showed they turned out to be much older and much more common than previously thought.

When the alarmists thought this information was relevant, believing man had "pushed the system past a breaking point" they were all over weather and climate sites raging...for about 2 years after the torches were first discovered.

then when it was discovered that they have existed for hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of years...the climate "scientists" suddenly try to hide this information under the rug. Don't mention this one boys. The pollution was made by microbes the entire time, and has always been there, varying a bit here and there, for thousands and thousands of non-man-made years.

Even if there was a hockey stick, it isn't man-made.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2015
Why doesn't this happen in the Southern Hemisphere?

Geologic Coincidence.

It so happens that the way continental drift in the N. Hemisphere worked out, there were at times several mega-disasters destroying and covering over entire regions worth of forests in a relatively short time, both in N. Europe and in Eastern U.S., not to mention Canada used to be at the Equator, and probably also experienced these events. Evidence of these uncoformities can still be found in the Apalachian mountains in the US.

It would seem that Antarctica has had a less violent past, drifted to it's present location from a few thousand miles away, and has been too cold for massive amounts of plant life for many eons, sooo...this form of instant catestrophic destruction and burial in soil on land and sea didn't happen. Instead, any ancient life which may have been there from a few million years ago is still frozen solid under 3 miles of Glaciers, likely well preserved.

Returners
1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2015
I have calculated that actually, since the glaciers move, if they moved even just a fraction of a meter per day, say a centimeter, then all of the biological material buried under the glaciers could be carried out to sea in as little as 270,000 years after original death and deposition. Then this material would have been deposited an ice shelfs, much of it would be the type of stuff that either dissolves in water, or becomes a gas when pressure is released...

Seeing as how Antarctic glaciers are several million years old, this means most of this carbon release, if there ever was any, peaked a very, very long time ago for the Southern Hemisphere.

If the ice moves 1cm per year, you could re-surface Antarctica once every 270,000 years. If it moves 1m per year, it would be obliterated in just 2700 years.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2015
We have changed the inputs, and have destabilized the climate. It may oscillate between extremes before it settles into another stable state, which may not be conducive to our survival
Oh yeah I forgot about this lie - 'complex systems tend toward a stable state' -says gkam.

No they dont.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2015
This is not politics, it is science. It is a matter of our survival.


I beg to differ... this is about asking humanity to respond not to what is but instead to what MAY be based on computer-generated predictions. This issue is mostly about faith or lack thereof in both our ability to predict long-term trends and in the ability of the Earth to adapt to change.

gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2015
No, jeff, it is already upon us. I have been watching as things got worse since my degree in 1982, and now we are in danger of destabilizing our climate.

Look into the dangers of ocean acidification, or the spread of tropical diseases, the spread of pests, the changes in growing regions which support Humanity. We have lost half our ocean biomass, and that part of the food chain.

Don't get your science from political sources, read the studies for themselves.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2015
If we have indeed lost half our ocean biomass, there is FAR more evidence to indicate that it's due to over-harvesting and not some fraction of a tenth of a degree Celsius average temperature increase. I try to politicize this as little as possible. I don't believe in some massive conspiracy in order to gain control of the economy but I do think we have a tendency to put too much faith in the ability of models to predict the future and too little in the ability of the Earth (and ourselves) to adapt to change.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2015
You are correct, I did not mean to imply that loss is from climate change. It is to remind us the seas are already in a dangerous state.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2015
Jeff blurted:
This is not politics, it is science. It is a matter of our survival.


I beg to differ... this is about asking humanity to respond not to what is but instead to what MAY be based on computer-generated predictions. This issue is mostly about faith or lack thereof in both our ability to predict long-term trends and in the ability of the Earth to adapt to change.



So, if NASA told us that we had an asteroid on a collision course that would give it a high probability of hitting us in 2048, you would advocate waiting until it hits us because a computer simulation saying it could hit us "might" be wrong?

Are you against simulations?

You seem to be against science with some of the strange things you say, but are you also against computer models in general?
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2015
So, if NASA told us that we had an asteroid on a collision course that would give it a high probability of hitting us in 2048, you would advocate waiting until it hits us because a computer simulation saying it could hit us "might" be wrong?

Are you against simulations?

You seem to be against science with some of the strange things you say, but are you also against computer models in general?


Predicting an asteroid is a lot easier than predicting weather or climate.

Just take a look at all the conflicting hurricane models and global models on any given atlantic tropical system, and see how unreliable computer models really are.

http://www.wunder...ap=model

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.