Copenhagen emissions targets ‘not enough to avert catastrophic warming’

Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Emissions cuts proposed by the world’s leading countries fall far short of what is needed to prevent catastrophic global warming, according to a study released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate change summit. Even if countries adopted the most ambitious targets that each has put forward, the global average temperature would still rise by 3.5C by the end of the century and make large parts of the world uninhabitable.

The UN’s top climate change official appealed to the 192 nations taking part in the summit to strengthen their targets during the two-week summit to help deliver a global deal. Yvo de Boer said: “Copenhagen must be a turning point. The scientific community has told us we have 5 to 10 years to turn an upward emissions trend into a downward emissions trend. “Around 100 heads of state are coming to Copenhagen to make sure it is a turning point.” The study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany found that, with the pledges made so far, emissions would continue to increase until 2040.

Lord Stern of Brentford, the world’s leading climate change economist, has also concluded that, even assuming each country formally adopted the tightest targets in the ranges they had proposed, the temperature would still rise more than 2C. In July, the world’s leading economies agreed to limit the increase to 2C above pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Lord Stern said the world needed to cut emissions from 47 billion tonnes of CO2, the predicted figure for next year, to 44 billion tonnes by 2020. Lord Stern said that there was a gap of up to 5 billion tonnes between the cuts that the most ambitious targets would deliver and what was needed to reach 44 billion tonnes by 2020.

Achim Steiner, director of the UN Environment Programme, attempted to put a positive gloss on the figures: “People overestimate the impossibility of closing the gap. The deal at Copenhagen could still be meaningful if everyone puts a little bit more on the table.” Mr Steiner hinted that the US would need to produce a much more ambitious target to persuade the rest of the world that it was taking its fair share of the burden.

President

Obama has provisionally offered to cut US emissions by 4 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020. The EU has committed to a 20 per cent cut over the same timescale and offered to increase this to 30 per cent if other countries make similar efforts. China has also been criticised by many summit negotiators for proposing a weak target. It has offered to cut its emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 per cent on 2005 levels, which means its overall emissions will continue to grow rapidly.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has calculated that per capita emissions in China will be higher than in the EU by 2020. The average Chinese person will emit 6.3 tonnes and the average EU citizen 5.5 tonnes. US per capita emissions will be 14.7 tonnes, assuming that President Obama can persuade Congress to adopt his 4 per cent target.

Mr de Boer expressed concern that rich countries would engage in “aid-wash” at Copenhagen by repackaging existing aid money as financial pledges to help poor countries adapt to climate change. He said rich countries needed to give at least $10 billion a year of additional money over the next three years.

Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF-UK, said: “Copenhagen is the right time and the best opportunity for the world to agree on a climate deal.” But, he warned: “Going into this conference, there is not enough ambition on the table. The commitments made so far will not keep the world under 2C of warming, which is the threshold of unacceptable risks of runaway catastrophic climate change. This has to change over the next 12 days.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6946675.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=3392178

From The Times December 7, 2009