Is Paris better than Copenhagen?

Ah Paris, home of arts, croissants and love, and with any luck the future of our planet. September 2015 sees the next stage in Global Climate talks head to the French Capital. For many the last major talks in Copenhagen 2009 where a let down, plagued by petty fighting a lack of concrete policy, the Accord represents ‘little more than the lowest common denominator’ (Falkner et al 2010). So why should next year be any different? A recent lecture at the Grantham Institute co-run by the French Embassy gives us reason to hope. If you’ve got a spare hour it’s worth watching but if not read on.

Economics have changed

The first point raised was economic. 2009 was only a year after the world was plunged into recession, we’ve seen earlier how when unemployment and GDP are suffering people are less concerned about climate change (Brulle et al 2011) and as government policy and action reflects public opinion, impetus for spending on mitigation was extremely low in 2009. Although real wages are still suffering the economy is recovering, Britain in particular is on the up and was able to pledge £720million ($1.13Billion) to the Green Climate Fund. The price of renewables also continues to fall solar is energy is now cost competitive WITHOUT subsidies in many locations with the price on track to drop 400% since the 2009 (Candelise et al 2013). Even with the UK removing the Renewable obligation support, solar will be cheaper next year than this, and that money can help mitigate in other areas. Just take a leaf through Lord Stern’s new report on the New Climate Economy, it certainly provides a lot more hope for green growth than in the past.

Global Agreement

In 2009 China viewed climate change as something that happened elsewhere, it was caused by, and affecting the West but China itself was just fine. America meanwhile did not have Congress approval for a legally binding treaty, China then used this as their out, they wouldn’t sign unless the US did. But just last week both countries have reached a climate agreement. In a joint statement America promised to reduce by 26-28% whilst China will increase energy from zero emissions sources by 20%, at a time when for the first time ever Chinese Coal consumption and production are falling in response to air quality. The legality remains a critical part of negotiations, but increasingly in Obama’s final years he’s relying on executive action, this move could prove crucial with a Republican Congress and Senate and helps create a much more positive atmosphere heading into Paris.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/styles/full/public/20141112001059908383-original_us_china_climate_deal_app.jpg?itok=8uWs_jBp&mtime=1416183181 

Climate Change is here

China is finally addressing its air quality, David Cameron has attributed flooding in the Somerset Levels to Climate Change, and most importantly wine production in Bordeaux is on its way down. The last few years have seen a spate of examples which may or may not be attributed to climate change but can certainly help sway political action. Although Myers et al (2013) found that personal experience of climate disasters is only likely to reaffirm your position on climate change, visual effects such as flooding or pollution at least inspire action on a local level which can help support national pledges.

There are still ten months until Paris, first we have the Climate Change Conference in Lima next month which will see each nation commit to commit a reduction. A roundabout method but this is how international politics work. There should be great hope following talks in Peru, but for now there is a positive air surrounding the next year of Climate negotiations.

Global Blackjack: 2°C or Bust

Global climate negotiations are heating up; the New York summit and its 400,000 strong climate march have mobilized leaders for further talks culminating in Paris next year. The climate policy narrative (including the IPCC) is framed to keep global average temperatures beneath a 2˚C limit. This value is seen in the scientific literature but achieved international recognition as part of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. Whilst it is thought that warming of 2°C will prevent the worst climate related effects it is being increasingly questioned. A single figure doesn’t suggest pathways for adaption, and an arbitrary value can prove too abstract for people to engage with. If 2° isn’t right, then what is, and how will the language of organisations such as the IPCC affect government and public ability to engage with mitigation strategies?

Victor & Kennel (2014) argue that 2° represents a scientific and political failing. Particularly with the recent warming ‘hiatus’ it has allowed governments to ‘talk big’ without action. Average temperatures mask the complex processes behind climate change, recent increases in Antarctic sea ice analysed by Holland et al (2014) proved a field day for denialists using the very logical heat=melt argument. As in previous climate shifts, warming (or cooling) is highly disproportionate. The Arctic for example is warming far faster than either the equator of the Antarctic, whilst research on New Zealand Glaciers by Rother et al (2014) show a vastly different response in the Southern Hemisphere than the North. Victor & Kennel call for an expanded set of targets and indicators that better represent the state of the planets health. Using ocean temperatures, atmospheric CO₂ or regional temperatures allow governments to identify more cause-and-effect pathways. In terms of risk management calculations a singular temperature limit may though prove more effective than multi-vectored analysis (Sandford et al (2014). It is important to note that this all may prove irrelevant as we are currently on track to blow past 2° in line with IPCC 8.5.

Current emissions are in line with RCP8.5 (credit IPCC AR5)

The main issue for me is the lack of tangibility, people cannot see warming, the same as people cannot see emissions. What we can see are benefits (or consequences). Thompson et al (2014) propose a great strategy for evaluating air quality co-benefits of Carbon Policies in the US. With China focusing it’s mitigation strategies around reducing smog, the UK can adopt a similar approach to help companies and individuals see the effects of reducing climate impacts. A visible reduction in air quality, increased species diversity or greener cities are more identifiable than an abstract temperature, in a poll by Yale Climate Communication a greater percentage of Americans identified with the health benefits of mitigation than believed global warming was man-made. Whilst this limit helped mobilise international talks, the world must now turn to more rigorous pathways to change and in particularly the benefits of lower emissions. Victor and Kennel use the analogy that patients still do not understand why doctors monitor their vital signs; but they certainly feel the benefits.