Skip to main content

Copenhagen

3 replies [Last post]
battingozzy
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 5 days ago. Offline
Joined: 20 Jan 2010

Hi,

Can anyone tell me in an easy to understand way, what are the recent outomes if any from Copenhagen?

Aubrey
User offline. Last seen 4 weeks 5 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 11 Dec 2006

To battingozzi and "Understanding the recent 'outcomes' from Copenhagen."

GCI's comments on the  'Copenhagen failure' are that it all reads more like a 'postponement' because of the bungled C&C attempt: -http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/comment/2255920/copenhagen-blame-game-sparked

Two 'C&C-graphics' [1. Climate Change Committee [CCC] and 2. GCI] are now published on pp 44/45 of this new Environmental Audit Committee [EAC] HoC Select Committee Report/Evidence: - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenvaud/228/228ii.pdf 

 
Note, EAC publishes these *showing that the Hadley Centre agrees with GCI* re the risks and the 50:50 odds [!] - the GCI call is for an 80% cut by 2050 [see above] . . .
 
So if we're on the ball, we'll be interested in this 'cri de coeur' from mega-big-biz in NY [14/01/10]: - 
"As an international coalition of investor groups, we underscore the importance of concluding a legally-binding agreement this year with comprehensive long-term measures for mitigation, forest protection, adaptation, finance, and technology transfer, including a global emission reduction target of 50–85% by 2050 " [BTW that's quite a 'margin of error' - see below].

These players got together to hold an investor's 'wake' after the 'Copenhagen failure' - see here: -http://www.incr.com/investorsummit 

We think they're wide open for 'leadership by idea' now the UN is in trouble . . .
 
Kind regards
 
Aubrey
 

Aubrey Meyer

Claire James
User offline. Last seen 5 days 15 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Battingozzy - The 'Copenhagen Accord' which emerged from the talks in December refers to the need to keep global temperature rise below 2C, but has no plan for how to do this, still less how to distribute the burden fairly.  Countries have now submitted voluntary pledges to reduce emissions under the Accord, but these are clearly insufficient.  The figures given in this Guardian article suggest that under a 'business as usual scenario, by 2100 global temperatures will rise 4.8C.  Even if the pledges are all fully met they will still rise 3.9C by 2100.  Although a 2C rise is generally seen as the 'safe' limit, even this would still have a devastating impact in some parts of the world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/12/copenhagen-carbon-emission-pledges

 

Does anyone know where these figures come from and whether the 3.9C figure is generally accepted?   Also, is there a clear, reliable summary anywhere of what sort of impacts are expected with a 2C, 3C and 4C global temperature rise? 

 

Thanks

dragontal
User offline. Last seen 2 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 1 Jan 2007

The UK Met Office website has a good section on climate change, including a global interactive map for the effects of a 4C temperature rise compiled by Kirsty Lewis. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/effects/high-end.html

Scary!

Premium Drupal Themes by Adaptivethemes