Campaign against Climate Change

Aubrey Meyer

Here is a link to an up-dated C&C animation GCI did for Hilary Benn at DEFRA [UK Ministry] as he prepared for Bali.

This now includes the Hadley 'coupled carbon cycle models', and their figures corroborate the risk analysis on the All party Parliamentary Group C&C DVD. These coupled-model runs make it clear that emissions need to go down to nearly net-zero by 2050/60 globally to keep within the 450 ppmv 2 degree temperature boundary.

The C&C component assumes the fossil fuel contect of emissions against the back-drop of all emissions, as per the Hadely modelling. The coupled 450 area is mouse-touch sensitive for emphasis on demand [i.e. do-'touch'].

The 'carbon-arithmetic' counting this in the animation is at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation_[Tower_&_Ravens].exe

or for Macs
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation_[Tower_&_Ravens].hqx

Aubrey Meyer

C&C gets prominent billing in UNEP/SDI Climate Action Programme
http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/features

"Contraction and Convergence:
the proportionate response to climate change."

“The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
was agreed in 1992 with the objective to halt the rising concentration of
greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. In 2007, efforts to this end
remain insufficient and the danger of ‘runaway’ rates of global climate
change taking hold is increasing. The science-based, global climate
policy framework of Contraction and Convergence (C&C) offers an
equitable solution to cutting carbon emissions in the hope that global
collective efforts to reduce emissions can be successful. Three elements
are at the core of the C&C campaign: the constitutional concept of
Contraction and Convergence (C&C); the techniques and processes
developed to focus the debate on rates of C&C that are relevant; the
sustained effort to present C&C as the basis of the proportionate
response to climate change.”
http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/features

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are many other contributions from people of high reputation.
Sadly, however the contribution from UK Government economist Sir
Nicholas Stern is quite untrustworthy. Strong on the rhetoric of the
seriousness of the situation, he nonetheless foresees that we can
stabilize the atmosphere at 550 ppmv CO2 for a mere 1% of global GDP.

You may feel what I say next are harsh words - but this is economic and
scientific rubbish. It means we’d need to find, buy and burn another
half a trillion tonnes of fossil fuel, going to zero emissions over the
next 150 years on the arithmetic he’s using, to get to that ppm level
[why waste the money?] while trying to pay for adapting to a quantum of
damages that was rapidly destroying the global economy probably within
the next fifty years [why bother?]

For whom is this piper playing the tune?

Stern has not paid attention to the dangerous rates of climate change
scientific observation reveals that we are already the victims of. Nor
has he paid attention to the climate related damage rates already being
returned by the Insurance industry for ten years, where uninsured loss
estimates continue to run at twice the rate of economic growth. As he
claimed two years ago, he was a ‘beginner’.

To have any chance of stabilising the ppm level in the atmosphere,
zero-emissions globally within fifty years is the emergency requirement
the Hadley Centre’s coupled models now reveal [in IPCC AR4]. The
'carbon-arithmetic' counting the constraint against the relevant rates
of change is in the animation at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation_[Tower_&_Ravens].exe
or for Macs
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation_[Tower_&_Ravens].hqx

UK Government Chief Scientist Sir David King steps down today claiming
he was gagged by the government about the seriousness of climate change.
Doubtless Mr Stern won’t be claiming that while he is on the UK
Government’s delegation in Bali.

Soon to be ‘Lord-Stern’, he makes his bed in Ermine and in it he lies.
The truth walks elsewhere.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The contribution by Jeffrey Sachs - another economist - to this collection
is truly risible. Called "A Framework for Global Climate Change and Equity",
he clearly hasn't got a clue about the changing source:sink ratio, and what
he calls the 'simple arithmetic' of carbon.

The same critique applies only Sachs essentially projects a framework-free
economic growth curve of "Business-as-Usual" that does not violate 450
ppmv because the decarbonisation of this is largely achieved by wealthy
countries financing carbon-capture-and-storage apparatus plant-by-plant
on the burgeoning coal-fired power-stations of the poor countries.

Presumably this is the equity point, as the theme is dropped beyond its
mention in title. This technology is unproven and
already priced in $billions per plant].

Looking back over the years to 1995, even Professor Bill Nordhaus
[not known for his modesty and whose cost-benefit was shredded
by the IPCC in the Second Assessment Report] had the caution to
acknowledge that, "nature may have dealt us a nasty hand"
and that "plain vanilla cost/benefit" wasn't up to this challenge.

That was twelve years ago when atmospheric CO2 was 361 ppmv –
it is now 384 and the rise is accelerating due to
rising emissions and failing sinks.