Psychology for a safe climate

Climate Science - News

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years,

IEA warns If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will 'lose for ever' the chance to avoid dangerous climate change

Wednesday 9 November 2011 10.01 GMT

Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent guardian.co.uk,

Any fossil fuel infrastructure built in the next five years will cause irreversible climate change, according to the IEA.

The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.

"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."

If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available "carbon budget" will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA's calculations.

Birol's warning comes at a crucial moment in international negotiations on climate change, as governments gear up for the next fortnight of talks in Durban, South Africa, from late November. "If we do not have an international agreement, whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to [holding temperatures to 2C of warming] will be closed forever," said Birol.

But world governments are preparing to postpone a speedy conclusion to the negotiations again. Originally, the aim was to agree a successor to the 1997 Kyoto protocol, the only binding international agreement on emissions, after its current provisions expire in 2012. But after years of setbacks, an increasing number of countries – including the UK, Japan and Russia – now favour postponing the talks for several years.

Both Russia and Japan have spoken in recent weeks of aiming for an agreement in 2018 or 2020, and the UK has supported this move. Greg Barker, the UK's climate change minister, told a meeting: "We need China, the US especially, the rest of the Basic countries [Brazil, South Africa, India and China] to agree. If we can get this by 2015 we could have an agreement ready to click in by 2020." Birol said this would clearly be too late. "I think it's very important to have a sense of urgency – our analysis shows [what happens] if you do not change investment patterns, which can only happen as a result of an international agreement."

Nor is this a problem of the developing world, as some commentators have sought to frame it. In the UK, Europe and the US, there are multiple plans for new fossil-fuelled power stations that would contribute significantly to global emissions over the coming decades.The Guardian revealed in May an IEA analysis that found emissions had risen by a record amount in 2010, despite the worst recession for 80 years. Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, a rise of 1.6Gt on the previous year. At the time, Birol told the Guardian that constraining global warming to moderate levels would be "only a nice utopia" unless drastic action was taken.

The new research adds to that finding, by showing in detail how current choices on building new energy and industrial infrastructure are likely to commit the world to much higher emissions for the next few decades, blowing apart hopes of containing the problem to manageable levels. The IEA's data is regarded as the gold standard in emissions and energy, and is widely regarded as one of the most conservative in outlook – making the warning all the more stark. The central problem is that most industrial infrastructure currently in existence – the fossil-fuelled power stations, the emissions-spewing factories, the inefficient transport and buildings – is already contributing to the high level of emissions, and will do so for decades. Carbon dioxide, once released, stays in the atmosphere and continues to have a warming effect for about a century, and industrial infrastructure is built to have a useful life of several decades.

Yet, despite intensifying warnings from scientists over the past two decades, the new infrastructure even now being built is constructed along the same lines as the old, which means that there is a "lock-in" effect – high-carbon infrastructure built today or in the next five years will contribute as much to the stock of emissions in the atmosphere as previous generations.

The "lock-in" effect is the single most important factor increasing the danger of runaway climate change, according to the IEA in its annual World Energy Outlook, published on Wednesday.

Climate scientists estimate that global warming of 2C above pre-industrial levels marks the limit of safety, beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible. Though such estimates are necessarily imprecise, warming of as little as 1.5C could cause dangerous rises in sea levels and a higher risk of extreme weather – the limit of 2C is now inscribed in international accords, including the partial agreement signed at Copenhagen in 2009, by which the biggest developed and developing countries for the first time agreed to curb their greenhouse gas output.

Another factor likely to increase emissions is the decision by some governments to abandon nuclear energy, following the Fukushima disaster. "The shift away from nuclear worsens the situation," said Birol. If countries turn away from nuclear energy, the result could be an increase in emissions equivalent to the current emissions of Germany and France combined. Much more investment in renewable energy will be required to make up the gap, but how that would come about is unclear at present.

Birol also warned that China – the world's biggest emitter – would have to take on a much greater role in combating climate change. For years, Chinese officials have argued that the country's emissions per capita were much lower than those of developed countries, it was not required to take such stringent action on emissions. But the IEA's analysis found that within about four years, China's per capita emissions were likely to exceed those of the EU.

In addition, by 2035 at the latest, China's cumulative emissions since 1900 are likely to exceed those of the EU, which will further weaken Beijing's argument that developed countries should take on more of the burden of emissions reduction as they carry more of the responsibility for past emissions.

In a recent interview with the Guardian recently, China's top climate change official, Xie Zhenhua, called on developing countries to take a greater part in the talks, while insisting that developed countries must sign up to a continuation of the Kyoto protocol – something only the European Union is willing to do. His words were greeted cautiously by other participants in the talks.

Continuing its gloomy outlook, the IEA report said: "There are few signs that the urgently needed change in direction in global energy trends is under way. Although the recovery in the world economy since 2009 has been uneven, and future economic prospects remain uncertain, global primary energy demand rebounded by a remarkable 5% in 2010, pushing CO2 emissions to a new high. Subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels jumped to over $400bn (£250.7bn)."

Meanwhile, an "unacceptably high" number of people – about 1.3bn – still lack access to electricity. If people are to be lifted out of poverty, this must be solved – but providing people with renewable forms of energy generation is still expensive.

Charlie Kronick of Greenpeace said: "The decisions being made by politicians today risk passing a monumental carbon debt to the next generation, one for which they will pay a very heavy price. What's seriously lacking is a global plan and the political leverage to enact it. Governments have a chance to begin to turn this around when they meet in Durban later this month for the next round of global climate talks."

One close observer of the climate talks said the $400bn subsidies devoted to fossil fuels, uncovered by the IEA, were "staggering", and the way in which these subsidies distort the market presented a massive problem in encouraging the move to renewables. He added that Birol's comments, though urgent and timely, were unlikely to galvanise China and the US – the world's two biggest emittters – into action on the international stage.

"The US can't move (owing to Republican opposition) and there's no upside for China domestically in doing so. At least China is moving up the learning curve with its deployment of renewables, but it's doing so in parallel to the hugely damaging coal-fired assets that it is unlikely to ever want (to turn off in order to) to meet climate targets in years to come."

Christiana Figueres, the UN climate chief, said the findings underlined the urgency of the climate problem, but stressed the progress made in recent years. "This is not the scenario we wanted," she said. "But making an agreement is not easy. What we are looking at is not an international environment agreement — what we are looking at is nothing other than the biggest industrial and energy revolution that has ever been seen."

Climate change is now our problem

Giles Parkinson, 24 October 2011, Climate Spectator

A collection of new studies from leading climate scientists has thrown up a devilish challenge for the world’s political leaders: Not only do current climate change policies fall well short of stated targets (which we, and they, already knew), but the impacts may now be felt by the current generation, rather than the next. At least that removes the question of equity and discount rates for future generations.

The international community made a “political” agreement at Copenhagen and Cancun to try and limit average global warming to 2°C – without actually announcing the policies that would achieve it. It even recognized – under pressure from the most vulnerable nations, that aiming for a 1.5°C limit would be a good idea. We are currently around a 0.6°C increase with greenhouse gas already emitted likely to take us beyond 1°C.

The new studies – described as the most comprehensive yet on the political, economic and technological pathways needed to reach the 2°C target – highlight just how far short the current pledges fall below the stated targets.

According to the scientists – from the Zurich's Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre, and Melbourne University, among others – the world needs to reach a peak in emissions between now and 2020. But it also needs to reduce its current level of 48 gigatonnes a year to 44 gigatonnes by the end of the decade and then keep falling.

This was broadly the most feasible path of nearly 200 different scenarios to keep emissions at “safe” levels – or at least to have a “likely (greater than 66 per cent chance) of keeping them there. The later action is deferred, the more it will rely on improbably and probably impossible rates of reduction – it will be counting on some technological miracle from something that has not been invented yet.

The study noted that the preferred pathways will be difficult to achieve, and while they are not beyond the current level of political rhetoric, they are certainly beyond policy engagement.

At the current rate of growth, the world will be emitting somewhere between 53 and 57 gigatonnes by 2020. The weaker range of pledges under the Cancun agreement makes a barely discernible difference and puts the world at 53 billion tonnes, while the top-end Cancun pledges (which include a commitment by Australia to cut its emissions by 25 per cent by 2020), takes the figure to around 48 gigatonnes. Another four billion needs to come from somewhere – much of it from the largest emitters.

The implications of this target are that unless the world starts to reduce emissions in the next few years, the reductions may be beyond what is technically and economically possible. “We are getting close to the point where we might not make it,” says Dr Malte Meinshausen from the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences and a senior author on the study.

“As long as we keep emitting carbon dioxide, the climate will continue to warm. There is no way around a zero carbon economy sooner or later if we want to stay below 2 degrees,” Dr Meinshausen said. Just to get close to the target, countries need to honour the higher end of their pledges.

What may concentrate the political minds is a parallel study also released in the journal Nature this week, that underlines the point that global warming is no longer a problem that will impact future generations. The 2°C limit – and its consequences – could be reached within two decades.

The study, by scientists from Reading and Oxford Universities, the Met Office Hadley Centre, and New Zealand’s Victoria University, said large parts of the world would experience five-year average rises of 2°C by 2030 – this included Europe, north Asia and Canada, as well as North Africa.

"Certain levels of climate change are very likely within the lifetimes of many people living now ... unless emissions of greenhouse gases are substantially reduced in the coming decades," the study found.

The studies find that unless the world develops technologies that can deliver “net negative emissions” – such as using biomass combined with carbon capture and storage, the 2020 target might have to be even tighter – at around 42 gigatonnes.

More than 70 per cent of the "likely" chance scenarios assume global net negative CO2 emissions from industry and energy. The problem is that the combination of bio-energy and CCS has not been demonstrated on a significant scale in the real world. Concerns exist about CO2 storage potential, as well as the competition of large-scale bio-energy systems with food production, biodiversity and ecosystem services. And other negative emission technologies, such as direct air capture of CO2, are not included in most models at present. Negative emissions technology will be required well into the future to reach a 1.5°C scenario.

The conclusions of the two studies come as a fierce debate rages within Australia on the manner of policies that should be implemented to address climate change, and – within conservative ideologies here and in the US – whether it is even a problem that needs addressing.

But, as reported last week, even a study part-funded by the Koch brothers – the billionaire oil industry folk who have been the biggest funders of climate change denial activists and programs – has concluded that the earth is, in fact, warming.

The proposed carbon pricing mechanism proposed by the Labor government and currently making its way through parliament, outlines a 5 per cent target, with a 25 per cent target possible in certain scenarios that would be reviewed by an independent Climate Change Authority. The Coalition has outlined a plan to reduce emissions by 5 per cent based on “Direct Action”, but has no policy scenarios that could tackle a more ambitious target. Even the achievement of its 5 per cent target is doubted by most independent analysts.

The international community, meanwhile, continues to struggle with the concept of a binding treaty, or even on voluntary pledges that might meet the 44GT target outlined by scientists. There is little expectation that any sort of agreement can be achieved before 2015, due mostly to the gridlock in US Congress.

“If the international community is serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, countries seem ill-advised by continuing to increase emissions, which they have done so in the last 10 years, which ultimately will lead to disastrous consequences later on,” Meinshausen said.

“We can anticipate Australia will be one of the countries hardest hit by climate change due to recent years of droughts and floods. This is consistent with projections that we are going to expect more of these kinds of extreme conditions in the coming decades,” he added. “the world needs to do more this decade.”