Apparently there is a climate conference of some sort going on. Happy to answer any science questions as they arise…
Reader Interactions
270 Responses to "#COP21"
Chuck Hughessays
I’m like the kid in the back seat saying “Are we there yet??”
Does anybody know if anything ‘legally binding’ will come out of this Conference? I read where the U.S. would have to pass legislation through both Houses. I know that ain’t likely. I’m looking for any signs of a future life on the planet. Thanks
patricksays
“We have an enormously important interest in making sure that our planet stays within the ranges that have been so hospitable to human development for now 200,000 years.” (3:40-3:52)
“…It’s a revenue-neutral carbon fee. We call it a fee because the revenues would not go to fund government. They’d be returned to the American people. It’s the principle that Elon Musk espoused yesterday. …
“…We know this [the carbon fee] is where they’ll go–and that the time will come a lot sooner than many people think.” (23:50-24:45)
–Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, at COP21.
I heard the very same view on the revenue-neutral carbon fee expressed by Henry (Hank) Paulson, a former Treasury Secretary. He said: “The first thing to do is to agree on how important it is, and then we can figure out the best way to go about it.” (Sorry, no audio or transcript available.)
patricksays
Sorry, here’s the link for the quotes in my comment 6 Dec 2015 at 4:23 AM:
“All the difficult political issues remain unsolved and will be solved by the ministers,” European Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said. “It’s easier to get a weak agreement than a strong agreement.”
An accord will not define specific measures or targets, which are being undertaken at a national level.
But it should create a legal framework on key issues such climate finance for developing nations, beyond a goal of $100 billion a year already set for 2020, and set a long-term goal for the shift from fossil fuels.
The text, running to 43 pages including a 21-page core agreement, leaves most of those issues to be worked out.”
“…I call it the dumbest experiment in history–ever. Why would you do this? …
“…If you have your incentives aligned, the forcing function towards a good future–towards a sustainable energy future–will be powerful. …
“This is being fought quite hard by the carbon producers. They’re using tactics that are very similar to what the cigarette industry or the tobacco industry used for many years. They would take the approach of–even though the overwhelming scientific consensus was that smoking cigarettes was bad for you–they would find a few scientists that would disagree and then they would say, ‘Look, scientists disagree.’ That’s essentially how they would try to trick the public into thinking that smoking is not that bad.
“The solution obviously is to remove the subsidy. That means we need to have a carbon tax and to make it something which is neither a left nor a right issue. We should make it probably a revenue neutral carbon tax. This would be a case of increasing taxes on carbon, but then reducing taxes in other places. Maybe there would be a reduction in sales tax or VAT and an increase in carbon tax so that only those using high levels of carbon would pay an increased tax.
“Moreover, in order to give industry time to react, this could be a phased-in approach…” (7:01-10:53)
Joseph O'Sullivansays
As a thought experiment, what if someone at the the COP 21 waved a magic wand and instantly stopped all anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution, how much warming could we still expect and what would be the consequences of it?
Killiansays
#99 Steve Fish said Re- Comment by Killian — 5 Dec 2015 @ 11:40 AM, ~#94
Your comment- “Well, that’s subjective observation aka opinion, not proof, let alone evidence, so nope” -is excellent because it describes all of what you say in this post and others above.
Nice try.
Kisses.
Keith Woollardsays
No need to worry anymore everyone, the Pope has prayed for the summit to succeed, all will be fine now
Edward Greischsays
97 MartinJB: “The significance world leaders talking like everyone is going to survive”:
There is no way to know who, if anybody, is going to survive, as I have also said many times.
“The death penalty has an amazing ability to clarify the mind.” I don’t know who said that first. So dies a diagnosis that leads to a prognosis of 3 months to live. A little desperation enormously increases the resolve to take any action required.
COP21 is on track to pass Kyoto protocol #2. There is very little will to do anything other than hang out at the Paris country club. Everybody who is looking for 15 minutes of fame is giving a speech there. That includes many religious leaders. Religion is irrelevant.
There is only one person who gave a speech who is worth listening to. That one person is James Hansen. If the politicians understood the situation, they would take James Hansen’s speech as law. Instead, they ignore Dr. Hansen.
Got it? Kyoto protocol #2 vs James Hansen’s speech = law right now.
Victorsays
#96 MartinJB “Victor, I think I see the cause of your confusion about why your posts end up in the Bore Hole: You think they’re reasonable. They’re mostly not.”
No, they are perfectly reasonable. It’s just that you and most others here would rather not have to deal with them. I could be mistaken, certainly, or on the wrong track, but the questions raised are not that different from questions I’ve seen raised by many others, including climate scientists with perfectly good credentials.
In any case, and regardless of what you or anyone else here might think of my posts, there is no excuse for tolerating personal attacks on a blog devoted to serious scientific discourse. What I see here are a group of like-minded people already convinced ahead of time that they are right and everyone else is wrong — thus any serious objections to the prevailing view are “unreasonable.” Such an attitude promotes a situation where you preach to the choir and discourage anyone else from participating. At the same time you worry about what the rest of the world will think about the issues you raise, and whether or not they will take sufficient actions to deal with them. Lots of luck with that.
patricksays
The following edit of the James Hansen interview drops the interviewer and the Q&A, and shows 10 of 28 minutes, but eliminates all of Dr. Hansen’s slides, except one:
“The problem is that fossil fuels appear to the consumer to be the cheapest energy. They’re not really cheapest, because they don’t include their full cost to society. They’re partially subsidized but mainly they don’t include the costs of air pollution and water pollution on human health. If your child gets asthma you have to pay the bill–the fossil fuel company doesn’t.
“And the climate effects–which are beginning to be significant and will be much larger in the future–are also not included in the price of the fossil fuels.
“So the solution would be fairly straightforward: let’s add into the price of fossil fuels the total cost–which you can’t do suddenly, but you can do it gradually over time so that people have time to adjust.
“…It has to be across the board, across all fossil fuels at the source–the domestic mine or the port of entry. And I also argue that that money should be given to the public–give an equal amount to all legal residents of the country. That way the person who does better than average in limiting their carbon footprint will actually ‘make money.’ And in fact two-thirds of the people would come out ahead… [explains].
“That’s a transparent market-based solution, a conservative solution, which stimulates the economy… [estimates effects]. What we have to do is have the price of fossil fuels honest. That requires only a few of the major players to agree let’s have a rising common carbon fee…[explains]. So this, economists agree, is a fair way to do it, and it could rapidly move us off of fossil fuels.”
“we know from the climate record 5C in a decade or so has happened”
I’m not aware that we “know” that. If you’re referring to the Wright and Schaller paper, later work by Pearson and Thomas showed that W & S probably got the timing wrong by mistaking drilling artifacts for annual layers. Sadly, the “5-6 degrees in a decade or two” is still a commonly occurring meme. Don’t assume that each new research paper is the definitive word on anything.
#101, 104, Chuck–No, I don’t think that’s ‘grandstanding.’
I think that it’s modern negotiation, which is a thing of its own, and which often values process as well as result. As I understand it, the approval is basically an interim thing; the delegates approved what they could, and now bump things up to the next level to work out remaining issues. Which may or may not address some of the specifics you mention.
As to the US, it reminds me of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which the US has also not ratified. You can see about that via a simple Google search:
Some of the political aspects are somewhat parallel; hardcore US exceptionalist types don’t see any reason why the US should agree to limiting its freedom of action, while internationalists see significant advantages to being part of a community of nations with a strong framework of international law. The former is certainly one of the things that some anti-climate action folk take have difficulties with–merging, at the extreme, into pure paranoid fantasy about Agenda 21 and so on.
But the funny thing, and perhaps the most relevant one here, is that the US pretty much acts in accord with LOST, by established policy. It isn’t ‘in’, but it acts like it is. It seems that something like that is envisioned for Paris, except that the structure will intentionally accommodate such ambiguity from the foundation up. The INDC concept goes well with that, since by having the nation contribution to emissions mitigation be self-determined, it doesn’t ‘look’ like a top-down New World Order ‘intrusion’ on national sovereignty. And I think that’s had its appeal well beyond the US.
So, there’s a lot of ‘constructive ambiguity’ going on. But it does make it hard to tell ‘if we’re there yet,’ and sometimes the continual pushing off of the tough questions may not be the best thing. Cf., ‘Oslo peace process,’ and ‘US federal budget process.’
I wondered if the scientists here have any comments. Michael Mann recently had several items published at Scientific American. Can he ask why they are publishing anti-science material now?
I am considering cancelling my subscription since I have not read most of the magazine for the past several years due to its decline in relevant content.
Edward Greischsays
Annotated Outline for Fifth National Communications of Annex I Parties under the UNFCCC, including Reporting Elements under the Kyoto Protocol
References the Kyoto Protocol and does not provide any kind of a form to fill out otherwise.
It was a run-a-round to find this much. Now to find the real blank form I have to go back in history and find the Kyoto form. This suggests that they really aren’t interested in filling out any forms.
What is going on at COP21 is a circus. There is no intent to accomplish anything.
EG @100: do not allow the third world to become first world. As they get richer, they emit more CO2. Leave them in the stone age and they are not a concern, and may be the only survivors.
BPL: Or let them develop using non-carbon power sources.
Killiansays
Don’t assume that each new research paper is the definitive word on anything.
Comment by Tony Weddle
Don’t assume it’s not. I’ve yet to be wrong on my expectations for climate changes, so I’ll happily stick to my analyses, thanks. The 40-60% of changes coming from rapid change feels right given the evidence. Several degrees, even 5, in a decade or decades in a world more degraded than it has ever been, with no hysteresis to speak of? Risk assessment says assume the worst. Suggest you do the same.
That does not seem like clear thinking on your part. Science provides many thresholds and tipping points. We seem to have passed the WAIS colapse threshold already. There are famine thresholds around 2 C. There are species extinction thresholds which lead to clear ecosystem tipping points. You should try to pay attention to the science.
Chuck Hughessays
What I see here are a group of like-minded people already convinced ahead of time that they are right and everyone else is wrong — thus any serious objections to the prevailing view are “unreasonable.” Such an attitude promotes a situation where you preach to the choir and discourage anyone else from participating. At the same time you worry about what the rest of the world will think about the issues you raise, and whether or not they will take sufficient actions to deal with them. Lots of luck with that.
Victor, it is obvious that you haven’t seen or been keeping up with the scientific evidence. This is NOT conjecture. There is NO debate. The facts are in and well established. I think you have been given good directions as to where to look and how to find it. We all know and understand the situation. Either you’re not listening or you’re being a troll. Maybe you’re sincere but you’re still not listening. The folks here at realclimate.org are experts. They are actively involved in the research. You either need to pay attention or go elsewhere. Nobody here has the time or patience to continually address uninformed, silly questions.
This is of course my opinion based on your posts.
Victorsays
#105 — quoting Elon Musk: “This is being fought quite hard by the carbon producers. They’re using tactics that are very similar to what the cigarette industry or the tobacco industry used for many years.”
I’ve seen this comparison being made time and again — and fail to see the validity. If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, the effects would be hugely beneficial, both in health and economic terms, to literally everyone in the world — except, of course, for the tobacco industry and those who depend on it for their livelihood.
If all burning of fossil fuels stopped tomorrow, it would be an unmitigated disaster, the likes of which the world has never seen. From a purely human standpoint there is no downside to a smoking ban, but the downside to any serious attempt to curtail CO2 emissions on a scale that could make a meaningful difference (assuming AGW does in fact pose a real threat) would be catastrophic. And this is of concern not only to the carbon producers but literally everyone on the planet.
I continually read disgusted comments both here and the media generally regarding the inability of the Paris negotiators to go far enough to make a real difference, but there is a very good reason for that, which should be painfully obvious, no matter what side of the issue you’re on.
Chuck Hughessays
Keith Woollard:
December 7th, 2015 at 12:09 AM
No need to worry anymore everyone, the Pope has prayed for the summit to succeed, all will be fine now
I am quite proud of Pope Francis. I appreciate his help and concern. He’s doing what all religious leaders should be doing. I’ll take help anywhere I can find it.
Why? Because you may very well be wrong when promoting what any single study claims, as any scientist will tell you. Papers are often follwed up — cited — by later work.
There are wackos out on all extremes of the subject making handwaving claims about what’s true. One thing they have in common is they don’t cite sources and don’t help people find the more recent work. Another is that they abhor the center where policy can be made and reality changed by cooperation.
Eschew.
Edward Greischsays
116 B: Yes. They can start with nuclear, maybe leased. There are places where wind does blow steadily enough, but that isn’t generalizable.
But those aren’t happening enough. And aquifers are being drained, eliminating the food supply. The bad news is still global famine. I think that a lot of the “help the third world” is a way to continue economic growth, the end result being more dead bodies in the pile.
Theo van den Bergsays
For Australia, I am suggesting we offer a discount on our coal to those countries developing Carbon Capture. This would be a win for the environment, a win for our economy and even a win for coal companies, specially if this resulted in long term contracts.
Briansays
114: Mann’s belief is we have lots of time, so don’t worry and we can find a solution. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide is energetically very stable so it lasts hundreds of years in the atmosphere. By not doing anything we merely move the goal posts as we have done for the past 30 years. The climate models currently being put forward that show us staying below two degrees increase require going back in time or utilize a technological black box in which a miracle occurs. See Kevin Anderson’s talks, Tyndal Center.
Chuck Hughessays
I don’t see much in the way of specifics but it may be a bit early yet. Opinions?
They are unions + industry in favor of giving money to the third world for GW mitigation. They say that we need “solidarity” to defeat GW, as if we could go on strike against Nature. Sorry to say, that doesn’t work.
There are a lot of very strange ideas going around.
Chuck Hughessays
Apparently there is a climate conference of some sort going on. Happy to answer any science questions as they arise… RC
Yeah guys… I think an expert interpretation of events would be nice right now. Is anyone doing any live blogging of the event? Thanks
V @120: the downside to any serious attempt to curtail CO2 emissions on a scale that could make a meaningful difference (assuming AGW does in fact pose a real threat) would be catastrophic.
BPL: NOT curtailing them enough to make a difference will be catastrophic. Places that HAVE curtailed them enough to make a difference have NOT experienced catastrophes–Denmark, Uruguay, Spain, Germany, etc.
patricksays
Canada environment and climate change minister said to want 1.5C degree agreement, in closed session.
“Ace free arctic summers are somewhere around 2060”
In the last 20 years (1996-2015), we’ve had 4 years (1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001) with summer ice minima higher than the 1981-2010 average (6.278m sqkm). In the period before that back to 1979, we had only 3 years (1990, 1993 and 1995) with summer ice minima *lower* than that average.
2005 was a record low ice minimum. Since then, only one year(2006) has failed to break that 2005 record, and it has regularly been beaten by a considerable margin (by up to 2.89m sqkm).
Are you really going to bet that it’s going to take 45 years for the sea-ice minimum record to drop another 3.388m sqkm?
patricksays
@114 Michael Sweet: You may find it helpful to compare this:
Expand document to full screen and scroll down for scientists responses to typical Ridley. He is a pocket coal lord. He is ‘talking his book.’ His conflict of interest, re: climate science, is overwhelming.
A transcript of James Hansen’s COP21 address, “Climate Justice and Governmental Honesty”, is here. Very clear and forceful presentation of his carbon fee and dividend proposal.
Change and talk about it has to happen on all levels of organization: individuum, family, community, city, region, country, continent, world.
When I stated to my flatmates that we need a new fridge because of the apalling energy consumption of the old, I met utter incomprehension. There’s the starting point.
People b u y SUVs in large quantity – and are not criticed by their friends, are they?
Concerning Europe, we have a basically brillant tool here, which is – in principle – of such a great power, that it can replace scores of laws and regulations to decrease GHG emissions: the cap-and-trade-system, the ETS (emission trading system). Only this formidable sword is blunted by lobbying and indecisiveness. It needs four modifications IMO: 1. cover all emissions, not only 50%, 2. have a quicker decrease rate of the cap, 3. defuse the fraud done with CDM certificates (clean development mechanism) and 4. cover im- and exports, that is require allowances for the emitted GHGs attributed to a product, that has not been taxed similarly before, and allow exporters to sell their allowances attributed to exported products.
Ed. G. (127) said: “They are unions + industry in favor of giving money to the third world for GW mitigation… There are a lot of very strange ideas going around.”
The “third world” is going to use more energy over the coming decades. If the choice is having that energy come from fossil fuels or helping them leapfrog to carbon-free sources, I’ll take the latter thank you very much! But if you think your idea in 100 to “… not allow the third world to become first world. As they get richer, they emit more CO2. Leave them in the stone age and they are not a concern…” is an option, I have to wonder on what planet you think you’re living. Even if this were a remotely moral or acceptable thing to do, is there any way we stop the developing world from using more energy (let alone leaving the “stone age” they mostly haven’t been in for decades or centuries)? In your view, does the developed world also have a responsibility to decarbonize?
Edward Greischsays
The poison pills related to the third world taxing us are intact. They assure that any COP21 agreement will not be ratified by the US senate, and if it is, the US supreme court will strike it down:
Draft agreement and draft decision on workstreams 1 and 2 of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
Work of the ADP contact group
Edited version of 6 November 20151 Re-issued 10 November 2015*
A. DRAFT AGREEMENT
Article 2bis (GENERAL)
3. The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement this Agreement will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments on the provision of finance, technology development and transfer and capacity-building.
Article 3 (MITIGATION)
Option 3: ………….
bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties]]
…………………………
[in the sharing of the remaining global emission budget]].
14. Option 1:
[Developed country Parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures against goods and services from developing country Parties on any grounds related to climate change,
Translation: The first world is not allowed to mitigate GW without the third world’s permission. There is no remaining global emission budget.
Victorsays
#134 Silk: “Did you read any of the information I posted on ocean energy? Or that any of the other posters posted?”
I’m not sure which posts you’re referring to. I read much of what’s posted here but not everything.
I did a thorough study of ocean heat and ocean temps. as preparation for the book I’m not permitted to mention here, drawing on several different sources, including the realclimate blog. I’m certainly not an expert in this field, but I have a feeling few posting here are experts either.
In response to Charles Hughes: the “no debate” meme has become very fashionable of late, as though one could simply will oneself to be right and to Hell with scientific protocol. It’s that sort of claim that certifies in my mind, and that of many others, that the extreme warmist position isn’t science at all, but some sort of cult. I accept the basic premise behind Darwinian evolution and I don’t think much of “intelligent” design, but I would never dismiss a skeptic by claiming he had no right to debate the issue. I don’t know of any other branch of science that hides behind such an absurd claim, which is in fact antithetical to science. There is in fact no such thing as “scientific proof,” as there is always the possibility of falsification. If a theory is beyond falsification then it isn’t a theory. Mathematicians and philosophers are concerned with ultimate truth. Science concerns itself with the exploration, and evaluation, of possibilities.
Chuck Hughessays
The climate models currently being put forward that show us staying below two degrees increase require going back in time or utilize a technological black box in which a miracle occurs. See Kevin Anderson’s talks, Tyndal Center.
Comment by Brian — 7 Dec 2015 @ 6:36 PM
Maybe if we sprinkle it with Magic Fairy Dust and smother it in ketchup.
I watched the Kevin Anderson videos. Depressing. It’s like looking at a corpse and saying, “I think there’s a chance he could pull through.”
Interviewed by Amy Goodman: “KEVIN ANDERSON: Well, those of us who look at the—running between the science and then translating that into what that means for policymakers, what we are afraid of doing is putting forward analysis that questions the sort of economic paradigm, the economic way that we run society today. So, we think—actually, we don’t question that. So what we do is we fine-tune our analysis so it fits within a sort of a—the political and economic framing of society, the current political and economic framing. So we don’t really say that—actually, our science now asks fundamental questions about this idea of economic growth in the short term, and we’re very reluctant to say that. In fact, the funding bodies often are reluctant to fund research that raises those questions. So the whole setup, not just the scientists, the research community around it that funds the research, the journalists, events like this, we’re all being—we’re all deliberately being slightly sort of self-delusional. We all know the situation is much more severe than we’re prepared to voice openly. And we all know this. So it is a—this is a collective sort of façade, a mask that we have.”
#130–Proud to be a Canadian today (even one living in Atlanta, GA). In climate matters, it’s really the first time in a long, long while.
But I must say, this will incite a lot of Conservative hatred for the new PM back home. They denialists are a minority there, but dang, are they loud online.
Tony Weddlesays
Killian, you can assume whatever you want, of course. I was responding to your stated assertion that “we know from the climate record 5C in a decade or so has happened”. We most certainly don’t know that and the single piece of research, that suggested that, is in doubt as regards the time period. It would be more accurate to say that “there is some evidence that …”.
Could it happen? I don’t know. The situation is already dire, so I don’t know what assuming some debatable research is accurate will do to help the situation.
Mike Robertssays
Bart (#129, I hope; these numbers seem to change from time to time),
“Places that HAVE curtailed them enough to make a difference have NOT experienced catastrophes–Denmark, Uruguay, Spain, Germany, etc.”
Please show the data that says those places have actually curtailed emissions enough to make a difference, and please account for all emissions due to their economic activity (hint: not just emissions from their territory). They haven’t experience catastrophe likely because they haven’t curtailed emissions enough to make a difference.
ENGLISH ONLY
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
Sixth session, part two Bonn, 16-27 July 2001
Agenda item 7 (c)
PREPARATIONS FOR THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES SERVING AS THE MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL (DECISION 8/CP.4)
WORK PROGRAMME ON MECHANISMS (DECISIONS 7/CP.4 AND 14/CP.5)
Report by the Co-Chairmen of the negotiating group
……………………………..
page 6
Issue – Nuclear
Description
Can ERUs and CERs be generated by nuclear power projects?
Options
No mention of the possibility of using nuclear facilities for generating ERUs and CERs.
FCCC/CP/2001/2/Add.2, page3 Recognizing that Parties included in Annex I are to refrain from using nuclear facilities for generating emission reduction units and certified emission reductions.
ADP.2015.11.InformalNote 6 Nov 2015 informal document Published EN
Draft agreement and draft decision on workstreams 1 and 2 of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.
I’m like the kid in the back seat saying “Are we there yet??”
Does anybody know if anything ‘legally binding’ will come out of this Conference? I read where the U.S. would have to pass legislation through both Houses. I know that ain’t likely. I’m looking for any signs of a future life on the planet. Thanks
“We have an enormously important interest in making sure that our planet stays within the ranges that have been so hospitable to human development for now 200,000 years.” (3:40-3:52)
“…It’s a revenue-neutral carbon fee. We call it a fee because the revenues would not go to fund government. They’d be returned to the American people. It’s the principle that Elon Musk espoused yesterday. …
“…We know this [the carbon fee] is where they’ll go–and that the time will come a lot sooner than many people think.” (23:50-24:45)
–Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, at COP21.
I heard the very same view on the revenue-neutral carbon fee expressed by Henry (Hank) Paulson, a former Treasury Secretary. He said: “The first thing to do is to agree on how important it is, and then we can figure out the best way to go about it.” (Sorry, no audio or transcript available.)
Sorry, here’s the link for the quotes in my comment 6 Dec 2015 at 4:23 AM:
http://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop21/events/2015-12-05-09-05-ten-u-s-senators-at-cop-21-to-champion-climate-talks
SO… what exactly does all this mean?
“All the difficult political issues remain unsolved and will be solved by the ministers,” European Climate and Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said. “It’s easier to get a weak agreement than a strong agreement.”
An accord will not define specific measures or targets, which are being undertaken at a national level.
But it should create a legal framework on key issues such climate finance for developing nations, beyond a goal of $100 billion a year already set for 2020, and set a long-term goal for the shift from fossil fuels.
The text, running to 43 pages including a 21-page core agreement, leaves most of those issues to be worked out.”
Is this just more ‘grandstanding’?
http://www.trust.org/item/20151205114648-4a5oo/?source=jtHeadlineStory
“The solution obviously is to remove the subsidy.”
Elon Musk at COP21, with slides (12 mins):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3AmtjqqVvo
“…I call it the dumbest experiment in history–ever. Why would you do this? …
“…If you have your incentives aligned, the forcing function towards a good future–towards a sustainable energy future–will be powerful. …
“This is being fought quite hard by the carbon producers. They’re using tactics that are very similar to what the cigarette industry or the tobacco industry used for many years. They would take the approach of–even though the overwhelming scientific consensus was that smoking cigarettes was bad for you–they would find a few scientists that would disagree and then they would say, ‘Look, scientists disagree.’ That’s essentially how they would try to trick the public into thinking that smoking is not that bad.
“The solution obviously is to remove the subsidy. That means we need to have a carbon tax and to make it something which is neither a left nor a right issue. We should make it probably a revenue neutral carbon tax. This would be a case of increasing taxes on carbon, but then reducing taxes in other places. Maybe there would be a reduction in sales tax or VAT and an increase in carbon tax so that only those using high levels of carbon would pay an increased tax.
“Moreover, in order to give industry time to react, this could be a phased-in approach…” (7:01-10:53)
As a thought experiment, what if someone at the the COP 21 waved a magic wand and instantly stopped all anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution, how much warming could we still expect and what would be the consequences of it?
#99 Steve Fish said Re- Comment by Killian — 5 Dec 2015 @ 11:40 AM, ~#94
Your comment- “Well, that’s subjective observation aka opinion, not proof, let alone evidence, so nope” -is excellent because it describes all of what you say in this post and others above.
Nice try.
Kisses.
No need to worry anymore everyone, the Pope has prayed for the summit to succeed, all will be fine now
97 MartinJB: “The significance world leaders talking like everyone is going to survive”:
There is no way to know who, if anybody, is going to survive, as I have also said many times.
“The death penalty has an amazing ability to clarify the mind.” I don’t know who said that first. So dies a diagnosis that leads to a prognosis of 3 months to live. A little desperation enormously increases the resolve to take any action required.
COP21 is on track to pass Kyoto protocol #2. There is very little will to do anything other than hang out at the Paris country club. Everybody who is looking for 15 minutes of fame is giving a speech there. That includes many religious leaders. Religion is irrelevant.
There is only one person who gave a speech who is worth listening to. That one person is James Hansen. If the politicians understood the situation, they would take James Hansen’s speech as law. Instead, they ignore Dr. Hansen.
Got it? Kyoto protocol #2 vs James Hansen’s speech = law right now.
#96 MartinJB “Victor, I think I see the cause of your confusion about why your posts end up in the Bore Hole: You think they’re reasonable. They’re mostly not.”
No, they are perfectly reasonable. It’s just that you and most others here would rather not have to deal with them. I could be mistaken, certainly, or on the wrong track, but the questions raised are not that different from questions I’ve seen raised by many others, including climate scientists with perfectly good credentials.
In any case, and regardless of what you or anyone else here might think of my posts, there is no excuse for tolerating personal attacks on a blog devoted to serious scientific discourse. What I see here are a group of like-minded people already convinced ahead of time that they are right and everyone else is wrong — thus any serious objections to the prevailing view are “unreasonable.” Such an attitude promotes a situation where you preach to the choir and discourage anyone else from participating. At the same time you worry about what the rest of the world will think about the issues you raise, and whether or not they will take sufficient actions to deal with them. Lots of luck with that.
The following edit of the James Hansen interview drops the interviewer and the Q&A, and shows 10 of 28 minutes, but eliminates all of Dr. Hansen’s slides, except one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s5m8YEBXks
With this edit, the video begins as Hansen says:
“The problem is that fossil fuels appear to the consumer to be the cheapest energy. They’re not really cheapest, because they don’t include their full cost to society. They’re partially subsidized but mainly they don’t include the costs of air pollution and water pollution on human health. If your child gets asthma you have to pay the bill–the fossil fuel company doesn’t.
“And the climate effects–which are beginning to be significant and will be much larger in the future–are also not included in the price of the fossil fuels.
“So the solution would be fairly straightforward: let’s add into the price of fossil fuels the total cost–which you can’t do suddenly, but you can do it gradually over time so that people have time to adjust.
“…It has to be across the board, across all fossil fuels at the source–the domestic mine or the port of entry. And I also argue that that money should be given to the public–give an equal amount to all legal residents of the country. That way the person who does better than average in limiting their carbon footprint will actually ‘make money.’ And in fact two-thirds of the people would come out ahead… [explains].
“That’s a transparent market-based solution, a conservative solution, which stimulates the economy… [estimates effects]. What we have to do is have the price of fossil fuels honest. That requires only a few of the major players to agree let’s have a rising common carbon fee…[explains]. So this, economists agree, is a fair way to do it, and it could rapidly move us off of fossil fuels.”
Killian,
“we know from the climate record 5C in a decade or so has happened”
I’m not aware that we “know” that. If you’re referring to the Wright and Schaller paper, later work by Pearson and Thomas showed that W & S probably got the timing wrong by mistaking drilling artifacts for annual layers. Sadly, the “5-6 degrees in a decade or two” is still a commonly occurring meme. Don’t assume that each new research paper is the definitive word on anything.
#101, 104, Chuck–No, I don’t think that’s ‘grandstanding.’
I think that it’s modern negotiation, which is a thing of its own, and which often values process as well as result. As I understand it, the approval is basically an interim thing; the delegates approved what they could, and now bump things up to the next level to work out remaining issues. Which may or may not address some of the specifics you mention.
As to the US, it reminds me of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which the US has also not ratified. You can see about that via a simple Google search:
“us on law of the sea”:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=us+on+law+of+the+sea&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Some of the political aspects are somewhat parallel; hardcore US exceptionalist types don’t see any reason why the US should agree to limiting its freedom of action, while internationalists see significant advantages to being part of a community of nations with a strong framework of international law. The former is certainly one of the things that some anti-climate action folk take have difficulties with–merging, at the extreme, into pure paranoid fantasy about Agenda 21 and so on.
But the funny thing, and perhaps the most relevant one here, is that the US pretty much acts in accord with LOST, by established policy. It isn’t ‘in’, but it acts like it is. It seems that something like that is envisioned for Paris, except that the structure will intentionally accommodate such ambiguity from the foundation up. The INDC concept goes well with that, since by having the nation contribution to emissions mitigation be self-determined, it doesn’t ‘look’ like a top-down New World Order ‘intrusion’ on national sovereignty. And I think that’s had its appeal well beyond the US.
So, there’s a lot of ‘constructive ambiguity’ going on. But it does make it hard to tell ‘if we’re there yet,’ and sometimes the continual pushing off of the tough questions may not be the best thing. Cf., ‘Oslo peace process,’ and ‘US federal budget process.’
I read an op-ed on climate science by Matt Ridley published by Scientific American!! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/
I wondered if the scientists here have any comments. Michael Mann recently had several items published at Scientific American. Can he ask why they are publishing anti-science material now?
I am considering cancelling my subscription since I have not read most of the magazine for the past several years due to its decline in relevant content.
Annotated Outline for Fifth National Communications of Annex I Parties under the UNFCCC, including Reporting Elements under the Kyoto Protocol
References the Kyoto Protocol and does not provide any kind of a form to fill out otherwise.
It was a run-a-round to find this much. Now to find the real blank form I have to go back in history and find the Kyoto form. This suggests that they really aren’t interested in filling out any forms.
What is going on at COP21 is a circus. There is no intent to accomplish anything.
EG @100: do not allow the third world to become first world. As they get richer, they emit more CO2. Leave them in the stone age and they are not a concern, and may be the only survivors.
BPL: Or let them develop using non-carbon power sources.
Don’t assume that each new research paper is the definitive word on anything.
Comment by Tony Weddle
Don’t assume it’s not. I’ve yet to be wrong on my expectations for climate changes, so I’ll happily stick to my analyses, thanks. The 40-60% of changes coming from rapid change feels right given the evidence. Several degrees, even 5, in a decade or decades in a world more degraded than it has ever been, with no hysteresis to speak of? Risk assessment says assume the worst. Suggest you do the same.
Andy #8,
That does not seem like clear thinking on your part. Science provides many thresholds and tipping points. We seem to have passed the WAIS colapse threshold already. There are famine thresholds around 2 C. There are species extinction thresholds which lead to clear ecosystem tipping points. You should try to pay attention to the science.
What I see here are a group of like-minded people already convinced ahead of time that they are right and everyone else is wrong — thus any serious objections to the prevailing view are “unreasonable.” Such an attitude promotes a situation where you preach to the choir and discourage anyone else from participating. At the same time you worry about what the rest of the world will think about the issues you raise, and whether or not they will take sufficient actions to deal with them. Lots of luck with that.
Victor, it is obvious that you haven’t seen or been keeping up with the scientific evidence. This is NOT conjecture. There is NO debate. The facts are in and well established. I think you have been given good directions as to where to look and how to find it. We all know and understand the situation. Either you’re not listening or you’re being a troll. Maybe you’re sincere but you’re still not listening. The folks here at realclimate.org are experts. They are actively involved in the research. You either need to pay attention or go elsewhere. Nobody here has the time or patience to continually address uninformed, silly questions.
This is of course my opinion based on your posts.
#105 — quoting Elon Musk: “This is being fought quite hard by the carbon producers. They’re using tactics that are very similar to what the cigarette industry or the tobacco industry used for many years.”
I’ve seen this comparison being made time and again — and fail to see the validity. If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, the effects would be hugely beneficial, both in health and economic terms, to literally everyone in the world — except, of course, for the tobacco industry and those who depend on it for their livelihood.
If all burning of fossil fuels stopped tomorrow, it would be an unmitigated disaster, the likes of which the world has never seen. From a purely human standpoint there is no downside to a smoking ban, but the downside to any serious attempt to curtail CO2 emissions on a scale that could make a meaningful difference (assuming AGW does in fact pose a real threat) would be catastrophic. And this is of concern not only to the carbon producers but literally everyone on the planet.
I continually read disgusted comments both here and the media generally regarding the inability of the Paris negotiators to go far enough to make a real difference, but there is a very good reason for that, which should be painfully obvious, no matter what side of the issue you’re on.
Keith Woollard:
December 7th, 2015 at 12:09 AM
No need to worry anymore everyone, the Pope has prayed for the summit to succeed, all will be fine now
I am quite proud of Pope Francis. I appreciate his help and concern. He’s doing what all religious leaders should be doing. I’ll take help anywhere I can find it.
Please remember Gavin’s request:
Cite your sources. Where possible give the DOI.
For example:
Wright and Schaller: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.abstract
September 16, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1309188110
PNAS October 1, 2013 vol. 110 no. 40 15908-15913
Why? Because you may very well be wrong when promoting what any single study claims, as any scientist will tell you. Papers are often follwed up — cited — by later work.
For example, the above paper — look down the page at the lower right corner both for the cite and for the link to “citing papers” — papers that came later and go further into the subject. At the moment (emphasis, right now) that’s these:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15908.abstract?cited-by=yes&legid=pnas;110/40/15908#cited-by
More information will come later.
There are wackos out on all extremes of the subject making handwaving claims about what’s true. One thing they have in common is they don’t cite sources and don’t help people find the more recent work. Another is that they abhor the center where policy can be made and reality changed by cooperation.
Eschew.
116 B: Yes. They can start with nuclear, maybe leased. There are places where wind does blow steadily enough, but that isn’t generalizable.
But those aren’t happening enough. And aquifers are being drained, eliminating the food supply. The bad news is still global famine. I think that a lot of the “help the third world” is a way to continue economic growth, the end result being more dead bodies in the pile.
For Australia, I am suggesting we offer a discount on our coal to those countries developing Carbon Capture. This would be a win for the environment, a win for our economy and even a win for coal companies, specially if this resulted in long term contracts.
114: Mann’s belief is we have lots of time, so don’t worry and we can find a solution. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide is energetically very stable so it lasts hundreds of years in the atmosphere. By not doing anything we merely move the goal posts as we have done for the past 30 years. The climate models currently being put forward that show us staying below two degrees increase require going back in time or utilize a technological black box in which a miracle occurs. See Kevin Anderson’s talks, Tyndal Center.
I don’t see much in the way of specifics but it may be a bit early yet. Opinions?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/analysis-key-announcements-day1-cop21.html
The Blue Green Alliance at COP21:
They are unions + industry in favor of giving money to the third world for GW mitigation. They say that we need “solidarity” to defeat GW, as if we could go on strike against Nature. Sorry to say, that doesn’t work.
There are a lot of very strange ideas going around.
Apparently there is a climate conference of some sort going on. Happy to answer any science questions as they arise… RC
Yeah guys… I think an expert interpretation of events would be nice right now. Is anyone doing any live blogging of the event? Thanks
V @120: the downside to any serious attempt to curtail CO2 emissions on a scale that could make a meaningful difference (assuming AGW does in fact pose a real threat) would be catastrophic.
BPL: NOT curtailing them enough to make a difference will be catastrophic. Places that HAVE curtailed them enough to make a difference have NOT experienced catastrophes–Denmark, Uruguay, Spain, Germany, etc.
Canada environment and climate change minister said to want 1.5C degree agreement, in closed session.
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/12/07/news/canada-shocks-cop21-big-new-climate-commitment
@Pete Best #27:
“Ace free arctic summers are somewhere around 2060”
In the last 20 years (1996-2015), we’ve had 4 years (1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001) with summer ice minima higher than the 1981-2010 average (6.278m sqkm). In the period before that back to 1979, we had only 3 years (1990, 1993 and 1995) with summer ice minima *lower* than that average.
2005 was a record low ice minimum. Since then, only one year(2006) has failed to break that 2005 record, and it has regularly been beaten by a considerable margin (by up to 2.89m sqkm).
Are you really going to bet that it’s going to take 45 years for the sea-ice minimum record to drop another 3.388m sqkm?
@114 Michael Sweet: You may find it helpful to compare this:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-respond-to-matt-ridleys-climate-change-claims
Expand document to full screen and scroll down for scientists responses to typical Ridley. He is a pocket coal lord. He is ‘talking his book.’ His conflict of interest, re: climate science, is overwhelming.
A transcript of James Hansen’s COP21 address, “Climate Justice and Governmental Honesty”, is here. Very clear and forceful presentation of his carbon fee and dividend proposal.
Victor – I’m not a climate scientist (though I am a scientist). I have a question for you.
Did you read any of the information I posted on ocean energy? Or that any of the other posters posted?
Change and talk about it has to happen on all levels of organization: individuum, family, community, city, region, country, continent, world.
When I stated to my flatmates that we need a new fridge because of the apalling energy consumption of the old, I met utter incomprehension. There’s the starting point.
People b u y SUVs in large quantity – and are not criticed by their friends, are they?
Concerning Europe, we have a basically brillant tool here, which is – in principle – of such a great power, that it can replace scores of laws and regulations to decrease GHG emissions: the cap-and-trade-system, the ETS (emission trading system). Only this formidable sword is blunted by lobbying and indecisiveness. It needs four modifications IMO: 1. cover all emissions, not only 50%, 2. have a quicker decrease rate of the cap, 3. defuse the fraud done with CDM certificates (clean development mechanism) and 4. cover im- and exports, that is require allowances for the emitted GHGs attributed to a product, that has not been taxed similarly before, and allow exporters to sell their allowances attributed to exported products.
Call to Earth – A Message from the World’s Astronauts to COP21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN1eSMXI_6Y&feature=youtu.be
Ed. G. (127) said: “They are unions + industry in favor of giving money to the third world for GW mitigation… There are a lot of very strange ideas going around.”
The “third world” is going to use more energy over the coming decades. If the choice is having that energy come from fossil fuels or helping them leapfrog to carbon-free sources, I’ll take the latter thank you very much! But if you think your idea in 100 to “… not allow the third world to become first world. As they get richer, they emit more CO2. Leave them in the stone age and they are not a concern…” is an option, I have to wonder on what planet you think you’re living. Even if this were a remotely moral or acceptable thing to do, is there any way we stop the developing world from using more energy (let alone leaving the “stone age” they mostly haven’t been in for decades or centuries)? In your view, does the developed world also have a responsibility to decarbonize?
The poison pills related to the third world taxing us are intact. They assure that any COP21 agreement will not be ratified by the US senate, and if it is, the US supreme court will strike it down:
Draft agreement and draft decision on workstreams 1 and 2 of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
Work of the ADP contact group
Edited version of 6 November 20151 Re-issued 10 November 2015*
A. DRAFT AGREEMENT
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/adp2/eng/11infnot.pdf
Article 2bis (GENERAL)
3. The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement this Agreement will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments on the provision of finance, technology development and transfer and capacity-building.
Article 3 (MITIGATION)
Option 3: ………….
bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties]]
…………………………
[in the sharing of the remaining global emission budget]].
14. Option 1:
[Developed country Parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures against goods and services from developing country Parties on any grounds related to climate change,
Translation: The first world is not allowed to mitigate GW without the third world’s permission. There is no remaining global emission budget.
#134 Silk: “Did you read any of the information I posted on ocean energy? Or that any of the other posters posted?”
I’m not sure which posts you’re referring to. I read much of what’s posted here but not everything.
I did a thorough study of ocean heat and ocean temps. as preparation for the book I’m not permitted to mention here, drawing on several different sources, including the realclimate blog. I’m certainly not an expert in this field, but I have a feeling few posting here are experts either.
In response to Charles Hughes: the “no debate” meme has become very fashionable of late, as though one could simply will oneself to be right and to Hell with scientific protocol. It’s that sort of claim that certifies in my mind, and that of many others, that the extreme warmist position isn’t science at all, but some sort of cult. I accept the basic premise behind Darwinian evolution and I don’t think much of “intelligent” design, but I would never dismiss a skeptic by claiming he had no right to debate the issue. I don’t know of any other branch of science that hides behind such an absurd claim, which is in fact antithetical to science. There is in fact no such thing as “scientific proof,” as there is always the possibility of falsification. If a theory is beyond falsification then it isn’t a theory. Mathematicians and philosophers are concerned with ultimate truth. Science concerns itself with the exploration, and evaluation, of possibilities.
The climate models currently being put forward that show us staying below two degrees increase require going back in time or utilize a technological black box in which a miracle occurs. See Kevin Anderson’s talks, Tyndal Center.
Comment by Brian — 7 Dec 2015 @ 6:36 PM
Maybe if we sprinkle it with Magic Fairy Dust and smother it in ketchup.
I watched the Kevin Anderson videos. Depressing. It’s like looking at a corpse and saying, “I think there’s a chance he could pull through.”
#109–
Ed, it was Samuel Johnson who said that–September 19, 1777, according to Boswell. The actual quote is:
“Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”
http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2010/12/it-concentrates-mind-wonderfully.html
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2009/09/hanging-it-concentrates-mind.html
Interviewed by Amy Goodman: “KEVIN ANDERSON: Well, those of us who look at the—running between the science and then translating that into what that means for policymakers, what we are afraid of doing is putting forward analysis that questions the sort of economic paradigm, the economic way that we run society today. So, we think—actually, we don’t question that. So what we do is we fine-tune our analysis so it fits within a sort of a—the political and economic framing of society, the current political and economic framing. So we don’t really say that—actually, our science now asks fundamental questions about this idea of economic growth in the short term, and we’re very reluctant to say that. In fact, the funding bodies often are reluctant to fund research that raises those questions. So the whole setup, not just the scientists, the research community around it that funds the research, the journalists, events like this, we’re all being—we’re all deliberately being slightly sort of self-delusional. We all know the situation is much more severe than we’re prepared to voice openly. And we all know this. So it is a—this is a collective sort of façade, a mask that we have.”
Frankly, I agree things are being underplayed.
#130–Proud to be a Canadian today (even one living in Atlanta, GA). In climate matters, it’s really the first time in a long, long while.
But I must say, this will incite a lot of Conservative hatred for the new PM back home. They denialists are a minority there, but dang, are they loud online.
Killian, you can assume whatever you want, of course. I was responding to your stated assertion that “we know from the climate record 5C in a decade or so has happened”. We most certainly don’t know that and the single piece of research, that suggested that, is in doubt as regards the time period. It would be more accurate to say that “there is some evidence that …”.
Could it happen? I don’t know. The situation is already dire, so I don’t know what assuming some debatable research is accurate will do to help the situation.
Bart (#129, I hope; these numbers seem to change from time to time),
“Places that HAVE curtailed them enough to make a difference have NOT experienced catastrophes–Denmark, Uruguay, Spain, Germany, etc.”
Please show the data that says those places have actually curtailed emissions enough to make a difference, and please account for all emissions due to their economic activity (hint: not just emissions from their territory). They haven’t experience catastrophe likely because they haven’t curtailed emissions enough to make a difference.
FCCC/CP/2001/CRP .2 19 July 2001
The “ban on nuclear” poison pill is on the table at COP21
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop6secpart/crp02.pdf
ENGLISH ONLY
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES
Sixth session, part two Bonn, 16-27 July 2001
Agenda item 7 (c)
PREPARATIONS FOR THE FIRST SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES SERVING AS THE MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL (DECISION 8/CP.4)
WORK PROGRAMME ON MECHANISMS (DECISIONS 7/CP.4 AND 14/CP.5)
Report by the Co-Chairmen of the negotiating group
……………………………..
page 6
Issue – Nuclear
Description
Can ERUs and CERs be generated by nuclear power projects?
Options
No mention of the possibility of using nuclear facilities for generating ERUs and CERs.
FCCC/CP/2001/2/Add.2, page3 Recognizing that Parties included in Annex I are to refrain from using nuclear facilities for generating emission reduction units and certified emission reductions.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop6secpart/crp08.pdf
is a blank form to fill out in deciding the questions on the poison pills at COP21
PS: Yes, I know the nuclear poison pill was from COP6. But I found it in the following document found at http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?id=3594&author=&searchterm=agreement+&symbol=&title=&topic=t-1&keywords=-1&documenttype=-1&country=-1&meeting=-1
ADP.2015.11.InformalNote 6 Nov 2015 informal document Published EN
Draft agreement and draft decision on workstreams 1 and 2 of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.
Now EXXON wants to get in on the act:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html
@114 Michael Sweet (see also) > “Scientific American has [sunk to a new low]…by including an article from science disinformer Matt Ridley.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/01/matt-king-coal-ridley-s-cop21-claims-create-more-heat-light