UN
In retrospect the Dec 2015 Paris Climate Agreement was and remains (Update May 2016) after Paris a global death sentence, as was judged by grassroots climate justice groups in December 2015.
The UN Climate Secretariat Update of projected global emissions at
2030 under the agreement is a 44% (up to 53%) increase from 1990,
which is a 16% (up to 23%) increase from 2010. Moreover at 2030
global emissions will still be on an increasing trajectory.
It sends the world even further away from an emissions scenario that
could stabilize the global temperature
The Paris Agreement has nothing to drive global emissions down.
The national emissions targets (called INDCs) and only 'intended' at that.
They are not commitments nor even pledges or promises.
There is nothing on fossil fuel subsidies (US$ Trillions a year).
Neither shipping nor air transport are included.
There is no carbon or GHG pollution charge or tax.
It contravenes the clear specific commitments of the 1992 UN climate change convention.
"We have to act NOW to slash greenhouse gas emissions." WMO
UNFCCC: Emissions will be higher in 2030 than they are today
Emergency civil society advisory concerning the UNFCCC just published projected temperature increases from the UN proposals (INDCs) for the UN Paris Climate Conference.
The entire world is a dire state of committed climate and oceans change planetary emergency, but the UNFCCC report to policy makers for the UN Paris Climate Conference practically ignores the fact.
And the longstanding long term 2°C equilibrium temperature increase limit has been changed to an easier 2°C only by 2100 target
The long known facts of the climate science are that if we target and hit 2.0°C at 2100, at best we (humanity) will be hit by more surface heating above 2°C slowly increasing for hundreds of years after 2100 and lasting thousands of years. At some point that will trigger so called ‘runaway’ heating and eventually the end of almost all life. If we want to limit heating to 2°C (for all future generations and life) we have to be under 1.5°C by 2100. We can only do that by putting global emissions into decline NOW.
In the next couple of years we have a slim chance of salvaging a future for humanity, hopefully leading on to a golden clean energy age, but I am afraid this will not happen if the UNFCCC policy maker report is allowed to stand. It allows for long continued GHG emissions, by continued climate complacency and empty mitigation promises from obstructive fossil fuel promoting governments.
The UNFCCC has published Climate Action Now Summary for Policy Makers 2015 (18 November 2015). This was preceded by the 28 October 2015 UNFCCC Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions and its Press release.
Civil society NGOs on the 30th October expressed grave concern about ‘the UN climate convention secretariat's unduly positive take on national climate pledges’. There is nothing positive about
emissions being higher than today in 2030 considering what they must be to avoid climate catastrophe.
The UNFCCC temperature increase targets and estimated INDC temperature increases are extremely large underestimates, deadly for policy making considerations and for the UN Paris Climate Conference.
The science is definite - it is all in the last two IPCC assessments. Atmospheric CO2 (in particular) is ‘forever’ in human terms. Global warming, climate change and ocean changes last thousands of years. Long-lived greenhouse emissions must be virtually zero for the global temperature and ocean acidification to ever stabilize. A lower carbon economy is not a virtual zero carbon economy. We have no time left for pledges of small incremental contributions to reductions in emissions. Action is not intentions, it is changing economic and energy policies NOW. It is obvious from disastrous effects today that 2.0C (forever) ) is certain planetary catastrophe. Atmospheric GHG pollution is just starting to impact on top off several ongoing global environmental degradations, socio-economic deprivations and conflict that will be multiplied. Whatever we do at this late stage, no one is going to escape some serious suffering from climate change. The only sane option is to aim for below 1.5°C. To avoid heating the planet above 2.0°C and for any hope of limiting to 1.5°C global GHG emissions must and could actually be made to start declining NOW (on immediate basis). The best well known mitigation tools are the termination of the enormous GHG polluting subsidies and charging all the well-known large central GHG polluters the full cost of pollution. The UNFCCC executive secretary has publically ruled out (to investors) global carbon pricing being an outcome for Paris, which is much more than odd because in May 2015 she received a formal letter from a several large fossil fuel industries asking for just that at Paris.
The UNFCCC policy maker report rules the above out, which practically rules out any kind of a decent future for humanity.
As an expert reviewer for the IPCC published on committed climate change I know the science in the UNFCCC reports are misleadingly fatally flawed for preventing an imminent commitment to global climate catastrophe, including so called climate change ‘runaway’ and ocean health collapse. As an expert in environmental health protection policy development I know that bright siding the terrible climate and oceans situation will not persuade governments to act by changing policies to protect the global environmental health, and particularly not for future generations. The consequences of not presenting policy makers the full terrible truth at this time I believe will leave humanity with no future worth living.
The UNFCCC policy maker report must be revised for the Paris conference to accurately provide the committed climate and oceans situation, follow the best long term UNFCCC policy limits, accurately provide the science based effects of the emissions being even higher in 2030 than today, and provide the best case mitigation scenario and emergency opportunities. It must be aimed on protecting the health and lives of the billions of most vulnerable, including all today’s children.
It is fundamental to recognize tghat continuing constant atmospheric greenhouse gas pollution is changing planet Earth for ever. Global warming, climate disruption, ocean warming, acidification and de-oxygenation will last many thousands of years. Ideas of future generations being able to successfully geoengineering the plant back to safety orof successfully adapting are criminally crazy.
The assessments (IPCC AR4, AR5) show that to avoid an equilibrium ‘for ever’ temperature increase of over 2.0°C, GHG emissions have to start declining on an immediate basis.
From IPCC AR5 data, anything higher than a sustained long term equklibrium 1.5°C increase could cause the collapse of world agriculture and trigger multiple amplifying feedback ‘runaway’ heating and climate chaos.
Based on standard risk assessment for the climate situation there is no more time to waste and to lose. It has all been run out by obstructive governments flouting the clear intention and terms of the 1992 UNFCCC and the basic human rights of billions of the most climate change vulnerable.
OCEANS
Risk must include and ocean acidification, warming and deoxygenation in projections, but the latter is not considered in the UNFCC reports.
The large underestimate of the catastrophically dangerous limits and the catastrophic climate change resulting from the grossly inadequate combined national proposals (INDCs) will no doubt be used by obstructive governments to continue ignoring the dire climate change planetary emergency and complacency regarding the drastic immediate emissions reductions required for our future survival.
This makes it even more vital for civil society to push aggressively for the under 1.5°C limit by 2100 (as the 2014 Climate Action Network Int. position) and after 2100. A temperature increase limit of 1.5°C (or 2.0°C) is only possible if GHG (CO2 equivalent) emissions actually start to decline now.
The Paris Climate Conference must not use these UNFCCC reports as the basis for mitigation. They are fundamentally fatally flawed, have no validity in science, in risk, or in human rights.
The 1992 UNFCCC metric for preventing dangerous climate interference is the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but these are not included.
The 2.0°C limit is now clearly an underestimate of the resulting catastrophic and disastrous climate change impacts. The limit must be under 1.5°C (equilibrium), which is mentioned but the report only addresses the 2.0°C (by 2100).
‘At the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the world’s leaders pledged at the highest political level to limit the increase in global average temperatures to below 2 °C, or potentially 1.5 °C. That goal was reaffirmed in the following year’s Cancun Agreements,’
The most important target of all is zero long lived GHG emissions, but this I not included in the Policy makers report.
The emergency response at this late stage has to use a global R&D Manhattan type project
The IPCC best case scenario (RCP 2.6) is the only one not above 2.0°C by 2100 and that does not keep increasing higher after 2100. It starts to decline in 2015 (AR5 2014 WG3 presentation and the CAN Int. position).
If not both the 1.5°C and 2.0°C limits will be impossible for humanity to achieve, with the result that civilization and the human population will collapse.
The UNFCCC has published its first Summary for Policy Makers called Climate Action Now Summary for Policy Makers 2015 (18 November 2015). This was preceded by the 28 October 2015 UNFCCC Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions and its Press release.
This response to the UNFCCC reports shows that for risk based long horizon policy making, the assumed UNFCCC temperature increase targets and projected temperature increases from the INDCs are way lower than risk based assessment (that is the only recognized policy making approach for extreme risks of fatal impacts to large regional populations or the global population). Indeed the UNFCCC reports provide an excuse for further delay by obstructive governments.
It is widely considered that the 2015 UN Paris Climate Conference (convened by the UNFCC Office) is our last chance to avoid committing humanity and life to a planet Earth in uncontrollable irreversible rapid decline. Even though it is acknowledged by the UNFCCC and the report calls for urgent action, it is shocking that this is not the context of the UNFCC reports, that overall do not give impression that global emissions have to be reduced on an immediate basis, and go as far as far as to say that global emissions decline delayed to 2030 could still allow climate safety- with no evidence and totally absurdly wrong.
‘…the IPCC report is only one of numerous warnings over recent decades from scientists regarding the effects of humankind’s increasing GHG emissions on communities, ecosystems and economies around the world. As GHG emissions have continued to rise, these warnings have become more urgent and dire’. (UNFCC Climate Action Now p. 6)
‘Compared with global emissions in 1990, 2000 and 2010,11 global aggregate emission levels resulting from the INDCs are expected to be higher by 34–46 per cent in 2025 and 37–52 per cent in 2030 in relation to the global emission level in 1990; 29–40 per cent in 2025 and 32–45 per cent in 2030 in relation to the global emission level in 2000; and 8–18 per cent in 2025 and 11–22 per cent in 2030 in relation to the global emission level in 2010’. (30 Oct 2015 UNFCCC INDC Synthesis Report Aggregate effect of the communicated intended nationally determined contributions. D. p. 9)
‘If Parties were to not enhance mitigation action until 2030 beyond the action envisaged in the INDCs, the possibility of keeping the temperature increase below 2 °C still remains.’
(30 Oct 2015 INDC Synthesis Report p. 11, 40)
Sources of very large underestimates
1. Only to 2100. In both UNFCCC reports, both the recent policy temperature limits and INDC projections are ONLY UP TO 2100 Amplifying feedback emissions by 2100 and after 2100. They do not account for the many very large planetary sources of CUMULATIVE AMPLIFYING FEEDBACK EMISSIONS causing a very large degree of extra warming over the long term.
2. INDC Policy relevance.
The INDCs are not relevant to policy making, so long as they are not legally binding policies or economic and energy policies have been changed (corrected) for climate change mitigation. Otherwise they are policy misleading being far lower than evidence indicates. Till then the historic trend is policy relevant that presently projects 4.5°C up to 5.9°C. (see figure below)
The emissions estimates quoted by the UNFCCC use the worst approach, which is to include conditional INDCs. Similarly the UNFCCC reports an INDCs surface temperature increase of 2.7°C (no upper range given). The 2.7°C figure is the worst choice as it includes conditional intentions. Climate Interactive using only unconditional INDCs estimates by 2100 3.5°C up to 4.6°C.
The upper ranges will be more like the real world projections due to amplifying climate change GHG feedbacks.
1. Only to 2100 The UNFCCC Summary for Policy makers is limited to 2100
This changes the longstanding long term equilibrium 2°C policy limit for policy making to a limit only by 2100
‘There is a significant gap between the expected collective GHG emission reduction effort by 2020 and beyond, and emission pathways consistent with a high probability of preventing warming above 2 °C later this century’. (UNFCCC Climate Action Now Summary for Policy Makers 2015 p. 7)
The just published UNEP 2015 Emissions Gap report also makes it clear the time horizon has been changed from the multiple century equilibrium temperature increase to only at 2100 for the UN Paris Climate Conference.
‘Countries will meet again at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris with the aim of establishing a new global agreement on climate change, hereafter the ‘Paris Agreement’, with the ambition of limiting changes in global temperatures to below 2 °C or 1.5 °C warming in 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels’. (UNEP 2015 Emissions Gap report Exec Summary p.1)
The climate change impacts AND RISKS shown with the highest IPCC AR5 scenario are greatly under-estimated ‘More than 4°C of temperature rise will likely bring decreased agricultural production, loss of critical ecosystem functions, and extinction of many animal and plant species’.
The best case scenario obviously should be shown but is not.
If this UNFCCC Summary for Policy makers is like the IPCC, presumably some governments have asked the UNFCCC to provide temperature increases only to 2100, but this is deplorable for policy making because it means certain global climate catastrophe for all future generations, and for almost all species.
Judging by the UNFCC report to policy makers and the UNFCCC Paris Climate Conference agenda it also means that will be no consideration of the only planetary emergency response, that being an immediate decline in global emissions, as in the best case IPCC AR5 scenario RCP 2.6 and called for by global civil society (Climate Action Network Int. June 2014 Position Paper).
It takes hundreds of thousands of years to completely stabilize global temperature to full equilibrium once the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations stabilize (IPCC AR5 WG1 ch. 12 p. 1103)
These UNFCCC reports are an extremely large underestimate of the true long term danger thresholds, equilibrium policy limits and INDC temperature increases (long after 2100). There is a wide range of estimates just how much more temperature increase is committed to occur after 2100 due inertia, but there is no question it will be substantial.
Since the very first 1990 IPCC assessment (FAR) it has been known that the full committed equilibrium temperature increase is much higher than the 2100 increase, due to climate system inertia. The FAR estimated it at another 100%, which is the figure given by 2011 NRC Climate Stabilization Targets
ILLUSTR
The IPCC AR4 illustrations are used here because they are easier to understand.
The actual temperature increases due to climate system inertia vary widely, so the point made here is by the IPCC projections that there is a lot more extra committed (locked in) warming at 2100, that will happen over many centuries after 2100.
This committed increases to 3000 due to inertia in the real world will be greatly increased due to many large planetary sources of extra feedback emissions that will emit under sustained warming over another 1000 years.
This IPCC graph was used by the IPCC to demonstrate global climate change commitment at 2100 temperature increase projections. It shows the extra warming at 2100 up to 2300. It makes it clear that 2°C at 2100 Has the world locked in to much more than 2°C.
These committed increases due to climate inertia in the real world will be considerably higher, due to many large planetary sources of extra feedback emissions that will emit under sustained warming over 1000 years.
Extra temperature increase from amplifying feedback emissions
The IPCC AR5 says that combined feedbacks up to 2100 will be positive meaning they will add to the temperature increase. There are no IPCC estimates of the very largest sources of GHG feedbacks There is a wide range of estimates just how much more temperature increase is committed to occur after 2100 due inertia, but there is no question it will be substantial.
Whatever the added warming will be these IPCC projections show it will be substantial by 2100 and increase for may hundreds to thousands of years long after 2100.
The temperature projections, like the IPCC AR5, do not account for the many very large planetary sources of feedback emissions inevitably caused by global warming that will add to the temperature increase with higher temperatures and longer warming.
Terrestrial carbon feedbacks (that do not include the largest feedback sources, like peat lands and permafrost) are estimated by the 2007 AR4 to be more than 1.0°C by 2100 on a higher emissions scenario and by the IPCC AR5 up to 1.8°C by 2100 (for a medium emissions scenario). They will increase long after 2100. ‘Warming tends to reduce land and ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remains in the atmosphere. For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases the corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than 1°C’ (IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM p. 13) . The A2 scenario reaches 3.9°C by 2100.
‘Based on current understanding of climate-carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest that to stabilise at 450 ppm carbon dioxide could require that cumulative emissions over the 21st century be reduced from an average of approximately 670 GtC to approximately 490 ( IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM p. 16)
This is a difference of over 35%.
PERMAFROST The permafrost climate feedback will add to the temperature increase by 2100. It holds double atmospheric carbon.
At some degree of warming permafrost thaw becomes irreversible as it generates its own internal
warming (IPCC AR5). For long after 2100 the feedback extra warming will therefore accelerate.
Policy requires a zero tolerance of runaway permafrost feedback, which is the immediate basis most rapid reduction of emissions.
ARCTIC SUBSEA FLOOR METHANE HYDRATE is another enormous risk of carbon feedback which reinforces the immediate basis policy most rapid reduction of emissions.
• The situation for the Paris climate conference is continued policy paralysis and now downgrading danger limits and mitigation responses (new 2°C and 2030 delay).
• Paris must provide more than targets, which mean nothing until governments change economic and energy policies that drive more fossil fuel production.
• Fossil fuel subsidies worldwide are $5.3 trillion per year (IMF) - not on the Paris agenda.
• The Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC (climate convention) has most improperly stated that global carbon pricing will not be on the Paris agenda (even though it is in the draft agreement text).
• The danger limit is NOT 2°C by 2100 (as UNFCCC & UNEP say). It is, at the most, 1.5°C at equilibrium long after 2100. Only under 15C by 2100 could result in a 2.C equilibrium increase long after 2100.
• Global emissions must and can decline BEFORE 2020 - not after 2020, as in the UNFCCC Paris agenda.
• The 1992 climate convention requires atmospheric GHG limits, not just surface warming limits. Again, not on the agenda.
• Current extreme levels and increased rates of all atmospheric GHGs is a definite planetary emergency and global emissions must be put into decline NOW (WMO, November 2015).
I am writing to underscore both the civil society rebuke of the 30 October 2015 UN climate convention agency (UNFCCC) positive spin of national proposals on emissions for the UN Paris Climate Change Conference, and the Global Forest Coalition statement, "The coming tragedy of Paris: A disastrous climate deal that will see the planet burn."
This is also to support the Climate Action Network (CAN) International 2014 position, the only position that is right by the science and by human rights.
As an expert reviewer of the IPCC 2014 Fifth Assessment, I must say that the just published UNFCCC INDC analysis and UNFCCC Climate Action Now Summary for Policy Makers 2015 (18 November 2015), also the 5 November 2015 UNEP 2015 Emissions Gap report for the UN Paris climate conference are highly misleading on our situation and misrepresent the science. By not communicating the planetary emergency (rather, giving obstructive governments an excuse to continue ignoring it), they make the situation much worse.
We are far beyond targets. Until governments actually act to change their present economic and energy policies, nothing will happen, whatever their UN "intended" climate proposals are.
Minimum survival policies are:
• Limit global surface temperature below 1.5°C
• Ensure that global emissions decline from NOW (2015 as in CAN Int. 2014 position and IPCC AR5 RCP 2.6)
• Terminate fossil fuel subsidies
• Charge large corporate polluters the full cost of carbon
Governments must at least commit to these at Paris. They don't all have to agree in order for responsible governments to make these changes right away.
If humanity is to have a future, at least one worth living, emissions must decline between now (2015) and 2020. The Climate Action Network (CAN Int position) last year said 2015 for global emissions to decline. It is correct - the IPCC 2007 assessment said 2015 at the latest, which was presented by the IPCC in 2014. The IPCC 2014 Fifth Assessment says 2015 to 2020 (RCP2.6). Anything less at this stage of climate and ocean disruption is far from enough.
Civil society NGOs should write to the UNFCCC and UNEP as well as their governments. Emissions must actually decline starting now (immediate basis). For that, governments must stop subsidizing fossil fuels and must start to charge the full cost of carbon pollution - in short order.
The two UN reports suggest global emissions decline could be delayed to 2030,which is climate change crazy.
The UNFCCC and UNEP reports are extraordinary. They downplay the climate emergency and also downgrade the required response. They have let the high-emitting, low-responding governments off the hook of accountability and at the same time have lowered the mitigation response they must make. They have eased the longstanding long-term 2ºC equilibrium temperature limit to 2°C only by 2100 (thereby moving the goalposts). For policymaking, it must be assumed that a 2100 2°C limit will continue increasing long after 2100 to equilibrium. Making it easier for high carbon polluters is the last thing the UNFCCC and UNEP should be doing. Governments are being allowed to get away with irreversibly poisoning the planet forever. It takes 100,000 years for CO2 emissions to completely disappear from the atmosphere.
The 2015 UNEP Emissions Gap Report says that it "... compares the resulting emission levels in 2030 with what science tells us is required to be on track towards the agreed target of a global average temperature increase below 2°C by 2100."
But that is not true. It permits the temperature to increase higher than 2°C after 2100, which is not the agreed target. The target is 2°C stabilized equilibrium temperature - 2°C for hundreds of years and hopefully less.
The state of the global climate and the state of play for a new UN treaty to put emissions into decline are terrible. Both have never been worse. These reports give no indication that we are all in a dire state of emergency for our future survival and, as the WMO says, we have to act now to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
The claim in the UNFCCC and UNEP reports that the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (that is, governments' non-binding proposals on emission reductions) signify great momentum and climate prospects is the most dangerous nonsense. It is incredibly misleading to the public when the UNFCCC report predicts that at 2030, emissions will be even higher than today! That is the worst news ever.
2°C is not the only limit for the Paris conference. The other option is under 1.5°C. The UNEP report includes the 1.5°C limit alternative along with the 2°C but it makes both only to 2100 (instead of long term). The UNFCCC report is all 2°C. That is really bad because the 1.5°C UN limit is so that billions of the most vulnerable and Small Island States might survive. Now it is clear that under 1.5°C is the limit if we are all to have a future worth living.
Even so, the UNEP Emissions Gap report projections show emissions must decline on an immediate-term basis even for 2.0°C by 2100 ... but UNEP is not calling for this.
The UNFCCC report projections also show emissions must decline on a right-now basis even for a high chance of a 2°C limit by 2100, but the UNFCCC is not pointing that out.
The UNFCC report on emissions claims that global emissions can be delayed to 2030 and still lead to climate safety. This is absurdly wrong.
If 2°C only by 2100 is allowed to stand, Paris will be condemning us to a world of progressive decline in food production. At +1°C, all crops for the most vulnerable regions decline, and at +2°C, all crops in all regions decline.
It has always been recognized that above 2.0°C, all future generations face multiple inter-reinforcing feedback climate change runaway.
The UNFCC global emissions estimate, applying the most lenient standards on proposals (INDCs), estimates that emissions at 2030 will be even higher than todayand on an increasing trajectory. If that is allowed to stand, it leaves humanity with no future - or no future worth living.
*The only practical way round this is to push for the IPCC AR5 best-case scenario RCP2.6, which after all is the only scenario that does not go above 2°C by 2100 and the only one that does not keep increasing after 2100. It is the IPCC global survival scenario.
Click for PDF with even more information
With hope for our common future,
Peter D. Carter, MD
Climate Emergency Institute
Canada
+1-250-629-3811
petercarter46@shaw.ca
www.climateemergencyinstitute.org
Peter Carter MD | Climate Emergency Institute | +1-250-629-3811
climatemergencyinstitute@gmail.com | ClimateEmergencyInstitute.com
The UN Climate Secretariat Update of projected global emissions at
2030 under the agreement is a 44% (up to 53%) increase from 1990,
which is a 16% (up to 23%) increase from 2010. Moreover at 2030
global emissions will still be on an increasing trajectory.
It sends the world even further away from an emissions scenario that
could stabilize the global temperature
The Paris Agreement has nothing to drive global emissions down.
The national emissions targets (called INDCs) and only 'intended' at that.
They are not commitments nor even pledges or promises.
There is nothing on fossil fuel subsidies (US$ Trillions a year).
Neither shipping nor air transport are included.
There is no carbon or GHG pollution charge or tax.
It contravenes the clear specific commitments of the 1992 UN climate change convention.
"We have to act NOW to slash greenhouse gas emissions." WMO
UNFCCC: Emissions will be higher in 2030 than they are today
Emergency civil society advisory concerning the UNFCCC just published projected temperature increases from the UN proposals (INDCs) for the UN Paris Climate Conference.
The entire world is a dire state of committed climate and oceans change planetary emergency, but the UNFCCC report to policy makers for the UN Paris Climate Conference practically ignores the fact.
And the longstanding long term 2°C equilibrium temperature increase limit has been changed to an easier 2°C only by 2100 target
The long known facts of the climate science are that if we target and hit 2.0°C at 2100, at best we (humanity) will be hit by more surface heating above 2°C slowly increasing for hundreds of years after 2100 and lasting thousands of years. At some point that will trigger so called ‘runaway’ heating and eventually the end of almost all life. If we want to limit heating to 2°C (for all future generations and life) we have to be under 1.5°C by 2100. We can only do that by putting global emissions into decline NOW.
In the next couple of years we have a slim chance of salvaging a future for humanity, hopefully leading on to a golden clean energy age, but I am afraid this will not happen if the UNFCCC policy maker report is allowed to stand. It allows for long continued GHG emissions, by continued climate complacency and empty mitigation promises from obstructive fossil fuel promoting governments.
The UNFCCC has published Climate Action Now Summary for Policy Makers 2015 (18 November 2015). This was preceded by the 28 October 2015 UNFCCC Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions and its Press release.
Civil society NGOs on the 30th October expressed grave concern about ‘the UN climate convention secretariat's unduly positive take on national climate pledges’. There is nothing positive about
emissions being higher than today in 2030 considering what they must be to avoid climate catastrophe.
The UNFCCC temperature increase targets and estimated INDC temperature increases are extremely large underestimates, deadly for policy making considerations and for the UN Paris Climate Conference.
The science is definite - it is all in the last two IPCC assessments. Atmospheric CO2 (in particular) is ‘forever’ in human terms. Global warming, climate change and ocean changes last thousands of years. Long-lived greenhouse emissions must be virtually zero for the global temperature and ocean acidification to ever stabilize. A lower carbon economy is not a virtual zero carbon economy. We have no time left for pledges of small incremental contributions to reductions in emissions. Action is not intentions, it is changing economic and energy policies NOW. It is obvious from disastrous effects today that 2.0C (forever) ) is certain planetary catastrophe. Atmospheric GHG pollution is just starting to impact on top off several ongoing global environmental degradations, socio-economic deprivations and conflict that will be multiplied. Whatever we do at this late stage, no one is going to escape some serious suffering from climate change. The only sane option is to aim for below 1.5°C. To avoid heating the planet above 2.0°C and for any hope of limiting to 1.5°C global GHG emissions must and could actually be made to start declining NOW (on immediate basis). The best well known mitigation tools are the termination of the enormous GHG polluting subsidies and charging all the well-known large central GHG polluters the full cost of pollution. The UNFCCC executive secretary has publically ruled out (to investors) global carbon pricing being an outcome for Paris, which is much more than odd because in May 2015 she received a formal letter from a several large fossil fuel industries asking for just that at Paris.
The UNFCCC policy maker report rules the above out, which practically rules out any kind of a decent future for humanity.
As an expert reviewer for the IPCC published on committed climate change I know the science in the UNFCCC reports are misleadingly fatally flawed for preventing an imminent commitment to global climate catastrophe, including so called climate change ‘runaway’ and ocean health collapse. As an expert in environmental health protection policy development I know that bright siding the terrible climate and oceans situation will not persuade governments to act by changing policies to protect the global environmental health, and particularly not for future generations. The consequences of not presenting policy makers the full terrible truth at this time I believe will leave humanity with no future worth living.
The UNFCCC policy maker report must be revised for the Paris conference to accurately provide the committed climate and oceans situation, follow the best long term UNFCCC policy limits, accurately provide the science based effects of the emissions being even higher in 2030 than today, and provide the best case mitigation scenario and emergency opportunities. It must be aimed on protecting the health and lives of the billions of most vulnerable, including all today’s children.
It is fundamental to recognize tghat continuing constant atmospheric greenhouse gas pollution is changing planet Earth for ever. Global warming, climate disruption, ocean warming, acidification and de-oxygenation will last many thousands of years. Ideas of future generations being able to successfully geoengineering the plant back to safety orof successfully adapting are criminally crazy.
The assessments (IPCC AR4, AR5) show that to avoid an equilibrium ‘for ever’ temperature increase of over 2.0°C, GHG emissions have to start declining on an immediate basis.
From IPCC AR5 data, anything higher than a sustained long term equklibrium 1.5°C increase could cause the collapse of world agriculture and trigger multiple amplifying feedback ‘runaway’ heating and climate chaos.
Based on standard risk assessment for the climate situation there is no more time to waste and to lose. It has all been run out by obstructive governments flouting the clear intention and terms of the 1992 UNFCCC and the basic human rights of billions of the most climate change vulnerable.
OCEANS
Risk must include and ocean acidification, warming and deoxygenation in projections, but the latter is not considered in the UNFCC reports.
The large underestimate of the catastrophically dangerous limits and the catastrophic climate change resulting from the grossly inadequate combined national proposals (INDCs) will no doubt be used by obstructive governments to continue ignoring the dire climate change planetary emergency and complacency regarding the drastic immediate emissions reductions required for our future survival.
This makes it even more vital for civil society to push aggressively for the under 1.5°C limit by 2100 (as the 2014 Climate Action Network Int. position) and after 2100. A temperature increase limit of 1.5°C (or 2.0°C) is only possible if GHG (CO2 equivalent) emissions actually start to decline now.
The Paris Climate Conference must not use these UNFCCC reports as the basis for mitigation. They are fundamentally fatally flawed, have no validity in science, in risk, or in human rights.
The 1992 UNFCCC metric for preventing dangerous climate interference is the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but these are not included.
The 2.0°C limit is now clearly an underestimate of the resulting catastrophic and disastrous climate change impacts. The limit must be under 1.5°C (equilibrium), which is mentioned but the report only addresses the 2.0°C (by 2100).
‘At the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the world’s leaders pledged at the highest political level to limit the increase in global average temperatures to below 2 °C, or potentially 1.5 °C. That goal was reaffirmed in the following year’s Cancun Agreements,’
The most important target of all is zero long lived GHG emissions, but this I not included in the Policy makers report.
The emergency response at this late stage has to use a global R&D Manhattan type project
The IPCC best case scenario (RCP 2.6) is the only one not above 2.0°C by 2100 and that does not keep increasing higher after 2100. It starts to decline in 2015 (AR5 2014 WG3 presentation and the CAN Int. position).
If not both the 1.5°C and 2.0°C limits will be impossible for humanity to achieve, with the result that civilization and the human population will collapse.
The UNFCCC has published its first Summary for Policy Makers called Climate Action Now Summary for Policy Makers 2015 (18 November 2015). This was preceded by the 28 October 2015 UNFCCC Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions and its Press release.
This response to the UNFCCC reports shows that for risk based long horizon policy making, the assumed UNFCCC temperature increase targets and projected temperature increases from the INDCs are way lower than risk based assessment (that is the only recognized policy making approach for extreme risks of fatal impacts to large regional populations or the global population). Indeed the UNFCCC reports provide an excuse for further delay by obstructive governments.
It is widely considered that the 2015 UN Paris Climate Conference (convened by the UNFCC Office) is our last chance to avoid committing humanity and life to a planet Earth in uncontrollable irreversible rapid decline. Even though it is acknowledged by the UNFCCC and the report calls for urgent action, it is shocking that this is not the context of the UNFCC reports, that overall do not give impression that global emissions have to be reduced on an immediate basis, and go as far as far as to say that global emissions decline delayed to 2030 could still allow climate safety- with no evidence and totally absurdly wrong.
‘…the IPCC report is only one of numerous warnings over recent decades from scientists regarding the effects of humankind’s increasing GHG emissions on communities, ecosystems and economies around the world. As GHG emissions have continued to rise, these warnings have become more urgent and dire’. (UNFCC Climate Action Now p. 6)
‘Compared with global emissions in 1990, 2000 and 2010,11 global aggregate emission levels resulting from the INDCs are expected to be higher by 34–46 per cent in 2025 and 37–52 per cent in 2030 in relation to the global emission level in 1990; 29–40 per cent in 2025 and 32–45 per cent in 2030 in relation to the global emission level in 2000; and 8–18 per cent in 2025 and 11–22 per cent in 2030 in relation to the global emission level in 2010’. (30 Oct 2015 UNFCCC INDC Synthesis Report Aggregate effect of the communicated intended nationally determined contributions. D. p. 9)
‘If Parties were to not enhance mitigation action until 2030 beyond the action envisaged in the INDCs, the possibility of keeping the temperature increase below 2 °C still remains.’
(30 Oct 2015 INDC Synthesis Report p. 11, 40)
Sources of very large underestimates
1. Only to 2100. In both UNFCCC reports, both the recent policy temperature limits and INDC projections are ONLY UP TO 2100 Amplifying feedback emissions by 2100 and after 2100. They do not account for the many very large planetary sources of CUMULATIVE AMPLIFYING FEEDBACK EMISSIONS causing a very large degree of extra warming over the long term.
2. INDC Policy relevance.
The INDCs are not relevant to policy making, so long as they are not legally binding policies or economic and energy policies have been changed (corrected) for climate change mitigation. Otherwise they are policy misleading being far lower than evidence indicates. Till then the historic trend is policy relevant that presently projects 4.5°C up to 5.9°C. (see figure below)
The emissions estimates quoted by the UNFCCC use the worst approach, which is to include conditional INDCs. Similarly the UNFCCC reports an INDCs surface temperature increase of 2.7°C (no upper range given). The 2.7°C figure is the worst choice as it includes conditional intentions. Climate Interactive using only unconditional INDCs estimates by 2100 3.5°C up to 4.6°C.
The upper ranges will be more like the real world projections due to amplifying climate change GHG feedbacks.
1. Only to 2100 The UNFCCC Summary for Policy makers is limited to 2100
This changes the longstanding long term equilibrium 2°C policy limit for policy making to a limit only by 2100
‘There is a significant gap between the expected collective GHG emission reduction effort by 2020 and beyond, and emission pathways consistent with a high probability of preventing warming above 2 °C later this century’. (UNFCCC Climate Action Now Summary for Policy Makers 2015 p. 7)
The just published UNEP 2015 Emissions Gap report also makes it clear the time horizon has been changed from the multiple century equilibrium temperature increase to only at 2100 for the UN Paris Climate Conference.
‘Countries will meet again at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in Paris with the aim of establishing a new global agreement on climate change, hereafter the ‘Paris Agreement’, with the ambition of limiting changes in global temperatures to below 2 °C or 1.5 °C warming in 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels’. (UNEP 2015 Emissions Gap report Exec Summary p.1)
The climate change impacts AND RISKS shown with the highest IPCC AR5 scenario are greatly under-estimated ‘More than 4°C of temperature rise will likely bring decreased agricultural production, loss of critical ecosystem functions, and extinction of many animal and plant species’.
The best case scenario obviously should be shown but is not.
If this UNFCCC Summary for Policy makers is like the IPCC, presumably some governments have asked the UNFCCC to provide temperature increases only to 2100, but this is deplorable for policy making because it means certain global climate catastrophe for all future generations, and for almost all species.
Judging by the UNFCC report to policy makers and the UNFCCC Paris Climate Conference agenda it also means that will be no consideration of the only planetary emergency response, that being an immediate decline in global emissions, as in the best case IPCC AR5 scenario RCP 2.6 and called for by global civil society (Climate Action Network Int. June 2014 Position Paper).
It takes hundreds of thousands of years to completely stabilize global temperature to full equilibrium once the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations stabilize (IPCC AR5 WG1 ch. 12 p. 1103)
These UNFCCC reports are an extremely large underestimate of the true long term danger thresholds, equilibrium policy limits and INDC temperature increases (long after 2100). There is a wide range of estimates just how much more temperature increase is committed to occur after 2100 due inertia, but there is no question it will be substantial.
Since the very first 1990 IPCC assessment (FAR) it has been known that the full committed equilibrium temperature increase is much higher than the 2100 increase, due to climate system inertia. The FAR estimated it at another 100%, which is the figure given by 2011 NRC Climate Stabilization Targets
ILLUSTR
The IPCC AR4 illustrations are used here because they are easier to understand.
The actual temperature increases due to climate system inertia vary widely, so the point made here is by the IPCC projections that there is a lot more extra committed (locked in) warming at 2100, that will happen over many centuries after 2100.
This committed increases to 3000 due to inertia in the real world will be greatly increased due to many large planetary sources of extra feedback emissions that will emit under sustained warming over another 1000 years.
This IPCC graph was used by the IPCC to demonstrate global climate change commitment at 2100 temperature increase projections. It shows the extra warming at 2100 up to 2300. It makes it clear that 2°C at 2100 Has the world locked in to much more than 2°C.
These committed increases due to climate inertia in the real world will be considerably higher, due to many large planetary sources of extra feedback emissions that will emit under sustained warming over 1000 years.
Extra temperature increase from amplifying feedback emissions
The IPCC AR5 says that combined feedbacks up to 2100 will be positive meaning they will add to the temperature increase. There are no IPCC estimates of the very largest sources of GHG feedbacks There is a wide range of estimates just how much more temperature increase is committed to occur after 2100 due inertia, but there is no question it will be substantial.
Whatever the added warming will be these IPCC projections show it will be substantial by 2100 and increase for may hundreds to thousands of years long after 2100.
The temperature projections, like the IPCC AR5, do not account for the many very large planetary sources of feedback emissions inevitably caused by global warming that will add to the temperature increase with higher temperatures and longer warming.
Terrestrial carbon feedbacks (that do not include the largest feedback sources, like peat lands and permafrost) are estimated by the 2007 AR4 to be more than 1.0°C by 2100 on a higher emissions scenario and by the IPCC AR5 up to 1.8°C by 2100 (for a medium emissions scenario). They will increase long after 2100. ‘Warming tends to reduce land and ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remains in the atmosphere. For the A2 scenario, for example, the climate-carbon cycle feedback increases the corresponding global average warming at 2100 by more than 1°C’ (IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM p. 13) . The A2 scenario reaches 3.9°C by 2100.
‘Based on current understanding of climate-carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest that to stabilise at 450 ppm carbon dioxide could require that cumulative emissions over the 21st century be reduced from an average of approximately 670 GtC to approximately 490 ( IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM p. 16)
This is a difference of over 35%.
PERMAFROST The permafrost climate feedback will add to the temperature increase by 2100. It holds double atmospheric carbon.
At some degree of warming permafrost thaw becomes irreversible as it generates its own internal
warming (IPCC AR5). For long after 2100 the feedback extra warming will therefore accelerate.
Policy requires a zero tolerance of runaway permafrost feedback, which is the immediate basis most rapid reduction of emissions.
ARCTIC SUBSEA FLOOR METHANE HYDRATE is another enormous risk of carbon feedback which reinforces the immediate basis policy most rapid reduction of emissions.
• The situation for the Paris climate conference is continued policy paralysis and now downgrading danger limits and mitigation responses (new 2°C and 2030 delay).
• Paris must provide more than targets, which mean nothing until governments change economic and energy policies that drive more fossil fuel production.
• Fossil fuel subsidies worldwide are $5.3 trillion per year (IMF) - not on the Paris agenda.
• The Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC (climate convention) has most improperly stated that global carbon pricing will not be on the Paris agenda (even though it is in the draft agreement text).
• The danger limit is NOT 2°C by 2100 (as UNFCCC & UNEP say). It is, at the most, 1.5°C at equilibrium long after 2100. Only under 15C by 2100 could result in a 2.C equilibrium increase long after 2100.
• Global emissions must and can decline BEFORE 2020 - not after 2020, as in the UNFCCC Paris agenda.
• The 1992 climate convention requires atmospheric GHG limits, not just surface warming limits. Again, not on the agenda.
• Current extreme levels and increased rates of all atmospheric GHGs is a definite planetary emergency and global emissions must be put into decline NOW (WMO, November 2015).
I am writing to underscore both the civil society rebuke of the 30 October 2015 UN climate convention agency (UNFCCC) positive spin of national proposals on emissions for the UN Paris Climate Change Conference, and the Global Forest Coalition statement, "The coming tragedy of Paris: A disastrous climate deal that will see the planet burn."
This is also to support the Climate Action Network (CAN) International 2014 position, the only position that is right by the science and by human rights.
As an expert reviewer of the IPCC 2014 Fifth Assessment, I must say that the just published UNFCCC INDC analysis and UNFCCC Climate Action Now Summary for Policy Makers 2015 (18 November 2015), also the 5 November 2015 UNEP 2015 Emissions Gap report for the UN Paris climate conference are highly misleading on our situation and misrepresent the science. By not communicating the planetary emergency (rather, giving obstructive governments an excuse to continue ignoring it), they make the situation much worse.
We are far beyond targets. Until governments actually act to change their present economic and energy policies, nothing will happen, whatever their UN "intended" climate proposals are.
Minimum survival policies are:
• Limit global surface temperature below 1.5°C
• Ensure that global emissions decline from NOW (2015 as in CAN Int. 2014 position and IPCC AR5 RCP 2.6)
• Terminate fossil fuel subsidies
• Charge large corporate polluters the full cost of carbon
Governments must at least commit to these at Paris. They don't all have to agree in order for responsible governments to make these changes right away.
If humanity is to have a future, at least one worth living, emissions must decline between now (2015) and 2020. The Climate Action Network (CAN Int position) last year said 2015 for global emissions to decline. It is correct - the IPCC 2007 assessment said 2015 at the latest, which was presented by the IPCC in 2014. The IPCC 2014 Fifth Assessment says 2015 to 2020 (RCP2.6). Anything less at this stage of climate and ocean disruption is far from enough.
Civil society NGOs should write to the UNFCCC and UNEP as well as their governments. Emissions must actually decline starting now (immediate basis). For that, governments must stop subsidizing fossil fuels and must start to charge the full cost of carbon pollution - in short order.
The two UN reports suggest global emissions decline could be delayed to 2030,which is climate change crazy.
The UNFCCC and UNEP reports are extraordinary. They downplay the climate emergency and also downgrade the required response. They have let the high-emitting, low-responding governments off the hook of accountability and at the same time have lowered the mitigation response they must make. They have eased the longstanding long-term 2ºC equilibrium temperature limit to 2°C only by 2100 (thereby moving the goalposts). For policymaking, it must be assumed that a 2100 2°C limit will continue increasing long after 2100 to equilibrium. Making it easier for high carbon polluters is the last thing the UNFCCC and UNEP should be doing. Governments are being allowed to get away with irreversibly poisoning the planet forever. It takes 100,000 years for CO2 emissions to completely disappear from the atmosphere.
The 2015 UNEP Emissions Gap Report says that it "... compares the resulting emission levels in 2030 with what science tells us is required to be on track towards the agreed target of a global average temperature increase below 2°C by 2100."
But that is not true. It permits the temperature to increase higher than 2°C after 2100, which is not the agreed target. The target is 2°C stabilized equilibrium temperature - 2°C for hundreds of years and hopefully less.
The state of the global climate and the state of play for a new UN treaty to put emissions into decline are terrible. Both have never been worse. These reports give no indication that we are all in a dire state of emergency for our future survival and, as the WMO says, we have to act now to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
The claim in the UNFCCC and UNEP reports that the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (that is, governments' non-binding proposals on emission reductions) signify great momentum and climate prospects is the most dangerous nonsense. It is incredibly misleading to the public when the UNFCCC report predicts that at 2030, emissions will be even higher than today! That is the worst news ever.
2°C is not the only limit for the Paris conference. The other option is under 1.5°C. The UNEP report includes the 1.5°C limit alternative along with the 2°C but it makes both only to 2100 (instead of long term). The UNFCCC report is all 2°C. That is really bad because the 1.5°C UN limit is so that billions of the most vulnerable and Small Island States might survive. Now it is clear that under 1.5°C is the limit if we are all to have a future worth living.
Even so, the UNEP Emissions Gap report projections show emissions must decline on an immediate-term basis even for 2.0°C by 2100 ... but UNEP is not calling for this.
The UNFCCC report projections also show emissions must decline on a right-now basis even for a high chance of a 2°C limit by 2100, but the UNFCCC is not pointing that out.
The UNFCC report on emissions claims that global emissions can be delayed to 2030 and still lead to climate safety. This is absurdly wrong.
If 2°C only by 2100 is allowed to stand, Paris will be condemning us to a world of progressive decline in food production. At +1°C, all crops for the most vulnerable regions decline, and at +2°C, all crops in all regions decline.
It has always been recognized that above 2.0°C, all future generations face multiple inter-reinforcing feedback climate change runaway.
The UNFCC global emissions estimate, applying the most lenient standards on proposals (INDCs), estimates that emissions at 2030 will be even higher than todayand on an increasing trajectory. If that is allowed to stand, it leaves humanity with no future - or no future worth living.
*The only practical way round this is to push for the IPCC AR5 best-case scenario RCP2.6, which after all is the only scenario that does not go above 2°C by 2100 and the only one that does not keep increasing after 2100. It is the IPCC global survival scenario.
Click for PDF with even more information
With hope for our common future,
Peter D. Carter, MD
Climate Emergency Institute
Canada
+1-250-629-3811
petercarter46@shaw.ca
www.climateemergencyinstitute.org
Peter Carter MD | Climate Emergency Institute | +1-250-629-3811
climatemergencyinstitute@gmail.com | ClimateEmergencyInstitute.com
POSITION 2030 UN Agenda, SDGs, Political Declaration
At this time we are all in an Earth emergency, (sustainable development, SDGs emergency) due primarily to the climate EMERGENCY. Therefore Climate action (re: global climate and oceans disruption) should be the top over-arching SDG. It is vital for our future survival that CO2 emissions decline 50% from now by 2030 (2018 IPCC 1.5C Report). Without the most rapid climate and oceans stabilization the progress on SDGs will be reversed and SDGs in general made unattainable. All atmospheric GHG pollution and direct effects are not only still increasing (adversely), they are accelerating, andGlobal GHG & CO2 emissions are increasing (see Home page). Without the most rapid mitigation measures, billions of people could not survive the global heating and climate disruption, and the future survival of humanity would be at high risk.
Request for IPCC 1.5C Special Report addition (2 sentences) to the Political Declaration
18 June 2019
We respectfully urge the addition of crucial facts of the climate change science to the 2030 SDG Agenda, which were not available at the time of drafting the SDG documents. We ask that these, which are in the 2018 IPCC 1.5°C Special Report and which specifically address sustainable development in 1.5ºC climate change mitigation, be included in the Political Declaration. There is now universal agreement on the long term 1.5°C limit. Note the IPCC 1.5C Report (title) specifies sustainable development as a purpose, that runs through the Report. We are asking that the two sentences in red from the IPCC 1.5C Report be added to the draft Political Declaration. These have been approved by all nations, through the IPCC 1.5C Report report and are being urged on nations by the UN Secretary General.
18 June 2019
We respectfully urge the addition of crucial facts of the climate change science to the 2030 SDG Agenda, which were not available at the time of drafting the SDG documents. We ask that these, which are in the 2018 IPCC 1.5°C Special Report and which specifically address sustainable development in 1.5ºC climate change mitigation, be included in the Political Declaration. There is now universal agreement on the long term 1.5°C limit. Note the IPCC 1.5C Report (title) specifies sustainable development as a purpose, that runs through the Report. We are asking that the two sentences in red from the IPCC 1.5C Report be added to the draft Political Declaration. These have been approved by all nations, through the IPCC 1.5C Report report and are being urged on nations by the UN Secretary General.
Draft 10 June 2019 Political Declaration
Item 10. We remain determined to rise to the climate challenge with urgent and enhanced and in ambition to preserve our planet taking into account the special needs and special circumstances of developing countries, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. To do so we resolve to limit long term global warming to 1.5°C, to work for the global reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from 2020, to decline global CO2 emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 towards net zero CO2 emissions by 2050, with global CO2 emissions declining from 2020, in keeping with the IPCC 1.5°C Report. To do so we resolve to unconditionally terminate fossil fuel subsidies on immediate time-frame, and to put a full costed price on carbon (fossil fuel pollution). We commit to conserve and sustainably use of planets resources to reverse the trends of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss and promote resilience and disaster risk reduction.
The -50% CO2 emissions by 2030, reform of fossil fuel subsidies and the indispensable pricing of carbon are in the IPCC 1.5C Report, which has been approved (line by line)by all governments, so we think it should be feasible to include them. The -50% CO2 emissions 2030 was given widespread media coverage.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In general we ask that the following on global climate change be considered as essential to SDGs and the 2030 Agenda.
These have also been urged by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres and as civil society stakeholders we strongly endorse these.
The IPCC 1.5C Report science makes it certain that the priority for the SDGs in general that CO2 emissions must fall by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 and that global CO2 emissions decline from 2020. We think that (the universally recommended) ceasing of fossil fuel subsides would achieve that. Fossil fuel subsidies increased in 2018 (International Energy Agency).
These points are:
• Global CO2 emissions decline rapidly from 2020 for both the 1.5C (IPCC 1.5°C Report Figure SPM 1 ) and 2C limit (UNEP 2018 GAP Report)
• CO2 emissions fall by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 (IPCC 1.5ºC Report Headline Statement C.1)
• CO2 emissions reach “net zero” by 2050 (IPCC 1.5ºC Report Headline Statement C.1)
• Fossil fuel subsidies terminated within an immediate timeframe
• Subsidies to high-emitting, unsustainable agriculture ended
• The full-cost price of carbon charged to large central emitters (fossil fuel corporations)
• The global climate (and oceans) emergency be acknowledged.
These are also in keeping with the 2012 Rio+20 re-affirmed Rio agreements.
We point out that for limiting both 1.5°C and for 2°C global emissions decline from 2020.
We strongly endorse the following statements made by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres (with many other statements in the UN appendix to this document). (These are taken from the UN site).
UN Sec. General says climate change is an existential threat to most life on the planet, including and especially humankind, UN chief warns global summit (15 May 2018, Austria World Summit).
UN Secretary-General Guterres warns If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us (11 September 2018, UN New York).
U.N. Secretary-General Warns of 'Total Disaster' If Global Warming Isn't Stopped. The alternative to global transformation “would mean ‘a catastrophic situation for the whole world’ Sec General Guterres said he will ask leaders to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. He said he wants countries to build no new coal power plants after 2020. He wants them to put a price on the use of carbon. He wants net zero carbon by 2050 (8 May 2019, UN New York) … we must address the global climate emergency. We are in a race against time — and we are losing the race (7 June 2019, Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum, Saint Petersburg).
Crucial quotes from the 2018 IPCC 1.5ºC Special Report (in italics)
Since the IPCC 1.5ºC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, the global climate emergency has been widely recognized. Hence the IPCC 1.5ºC Report is the most recent, authoritative report regarding sustainable development.
Key to avoiding catastrophic global climate change are the IPCC conclusions in the Summary for Policy Makers for 1.5ºC mitigation, which has been scrutinized and approved by all world governments through the IPCC consensus process.
Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5ºC or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems … Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. …Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society (INCHEON, Republic of Korea, 8 Oct 2018, IPCC 1.5°C Report press release).
In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050. For limiting global warming to below 2°C, CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 20% by 2030. Non-CO2 emissions in pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C (Headline statements C1.).
Future climate-related risks depend on the rate, peak and duration of warming. Some impacts may be long-lasting or irreversible…. (SPM A. 3.2).
CO2 emissions decline from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 or 2040 (text Figure SPM.1).
Pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot show clear emission reductions by 2030 … a 40–50% reduction from 2010 levels. Pathways reflecting current nationally stated mitigation ambition until 2030 are broadly consistent with cost-effective pathways that result in a global warming of about 3°C by 2100, with warming continuing afterwards. SPM. D.1.1.
In addition, the phasing-out of fossil fuel subsidies encourages less wasteful energy consumption (IPCC 1.5ºC Sustainable development (Chapter 5 Report Table 5.2)
Enabling this investment requires the mobilization and better integration of a range of policy instruments that include the reduction of socially inefficient fossil fuel subsidy regimes and innovative price and non-price national and international policy instruments.… Estimated at 650 billion USD in 2015 these subsidies represent 25–30% of government expenditures in forty (mostly developing) countries.… Reducing these subsidies would contribute to reaching 1.5°C-consistent pathways…. Explicit carbon prices remain a necessary condition of ambitious climate policies (Chapter 4 Enabling Rapid and Far-Reaching Change).
APPENDIX: List of official statements by UN Secretary-General António Guterres in 2018 and 2019
UN Sec. General says climate change is an existential threat to most life on the planet, including and especially humankind, UN chief warns global summit (15 May 2018 Austrian World Summit).
UN Secretary-General Guterres warns If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us (11 September 2018 UN New York).
U.N. Secretary-General Warns of 'Total Disaster' If Global Warming Isn't Stopped. The alternative to global transformation “would mean "a catastrophic situation for the whole world” Sec General Guterres said he will ask leaders to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. He said he wants countries to build no new coal power plants after 2020. He wants them to put a price on the use of carbon. He wants net zero carbon by 2050 (8 May 2019, UN New York) … we must address the global climate emergency. We are in a race against time — and we are losing the race (7 June 2019 Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum).
We need to tax pollution, not people, and to end subsidies for fossil fuels. The story of subsidies for fossil fuels is not usually well-described. Many people still think that to give fossil fuels subsidies is a way to improve living conditions of people. There is nothing more wrong than that. What we are doing is using taxpayers’ money — which means our money — to boost hurricanes, to spread droughts, to melt glaciers, to bleach corals. In one word — to destroy the world (28 May 2019 R20 Austrian Word Summit).
First, we must shift taxes from salaries to carbon. We need to tax pollution, not people. Second, we must stop subsidizing fossil fuels. Taxpayer money should not be used to boost hurricanes, spread drought and heatwaves, melt glaciers and bleach corals. Third, we must stop building new coal plants by 2020 (18 May 2019 Port Vila, Vanuatu).
These plans must show how we can reduce greenhouse‑gas emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade and get to net zero emissions globally by 2050 through strong mitigation and adaptation measures. And this is why I have been asking leaders around the world to adopt carbon pricing that reflects the true cost of emissions,… but also to end subsidies on fossil fuels, and not to start construction of new coal plants beyond 2020 (27 April 2019 Round Table Promoting Green and Sustainable Development to Implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Beijing).
Climate change is happening now and to all of us. Every week brings a new example of climate-related devastation. No country or community is immune. And, as is always the case, the poor and vulnerable are the first to suffer and the worst hit. It is clear that climate change threatens decades of development progress and places in jeopardy all our plans for inclusive and sustainable development. From increased poverty and food insecurity, to growing water stress and accelerated environmental damage, climate change is a clear and present threat. But, we must set radical change in motion.… This means ending subsidies for fossil fuels and high-emitting, unsustainable agriculture and shifting towards renewable energy, electric vehicles and climate-smart practices. It means carbon pricing that reflects the true cost of emissions, from climate risk to the health hazards of air pollution.… And it means accelerating the closure of coal plants, halting the construction of new ones and replacing those jobs with healthier alternatives for the people there employed, so the transformation is just, inclusive and profitable (28 March 2019 General Assembly’s High-Level Meeting on Climate and Sustainable Development, New York).
We are in trouble. We are in deep trouble with climate change. Climate change is running faster than we are and we must catch up sooner rather than later before it is too late. For many people, regions, even countries, this is already a matter of life and death. Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the top four in the past four years. The concentration of carbon dioxide is the highest it has been in 3 million years. Emissions are now growing again. The recent special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that warming could reach 1.5 degrees [Celsius] as soon as 2030, with devastating impacts. The latest United Nations Environment Programme Emissions Gap Report tells us that the current Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement will lead to global warming of about 3 degrees [Celsius] by the end of the century…. Emissions must decline by 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030 and be net zero by 2050…. Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement would reduce air pollution, saving more than a million lives each year by 2030, according to the World Health Organization. According to the recent New Climate Economy report, ambitious climate action could yield 65 million jobs and a direct economic gain of $26 trillion compared to business as usual over the next 12 years (3 December 2018 Secretary-General's remarks at the opening of the COP 24, Katowice, Poland).
We are experiencing record‑breaking temperatures around the world. Heat waves, fires, storms and floods are leaving a trail of death and devastation. If we do not change course in the next two years, we risk runaway climate change. We need urgent and unprecedented climate action in all areas (28 November 2018 Global Goals Summit for Heads of State and Government, Copenhagen).
Every new scientific report confirms that climate change is the greatest threat to human security and sustainable development, and that climate change is still running faster than we are.… The recent Special Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it very clear: We have little time remaining to limit global temperature rise to the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. If we miss the window, we face runaway climate change with irreversible impacts. The UN Environment Emissions Gap Report finds that most G20 economies are not on track to fulfill their Paris pledges on time. And even if they hit their targets, the world will still heat up by 3 degrees Celsius before the end of the century (1 December 2018 Remarks to G20 session on Climate and Sustainable Development, Buenos Aires).
We need to put a meaningful price on carbon and end fossil fuel subsidies, which today amount to $373 billion a year. Carbon pricing and ending fossil fuel subsidies can promote the low-carbon and climate-resilient growth we need. But, this coverage [carbon pricing] amounts to only one fifth of total global emissions. According to the 2018 New Climate Economy report, carbon pricing and ending subsidies could generate nearly $3 trillion in Government revenues or savings by 2030 (13 October 2018 Climate Finance Ministerial Meeting, Bali, Indonesia).
If we do not reverse the current trend of emissions by 2020, it may be impossible to meet the 1.5ºC goal. And that is what leaders committed to do in Paris. The effects of climate change are already upon us, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain life in the planet.… This means ending subsidies for fossil fuels and high-emitting agricultural practices [….] And it needs carbon pricing that reflects the true cost of carbon emissions — from climate risk to the health hazards of air pollution.… We must halt deforestation and address the growing impact of climate change on our oceans.… The time is long gone when we could afford delay. Each day brings further evidence of the mounting existential threat of climate change to the planet. Every day that we fail to act is a day that we step a little closer towards a fate that none of us wants — a fate that will resonate through generations in the damage done to humankind and to life on Earth (26 September 2018 UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks at the high‑level leaders dialogue on climate change, New York).
If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us.… As climate change intensifies, we will find it harder to feed ourselves.… But scientists tell us that we are far off track. According to a United Nations study, the commitments made so far by parties to the Paris Agreement represent just one third of what is needed…. I want to hear about how we are going to stop the increase in emissions by 2020, and dramatically reduce emissions to reach net‑zero emissions by mid‑century.… We are careening towards the edge of the abyss. It is not too late to shift course, but every day that passes means the world heats up a little more and the cost of our inaction mounts. Every day we fail to act is a day that we step a little closer towards a fate that none of us wants — a fate that will resonate through generations in the damage done to humankind and life on Earth (10 September 2018 Secretary-General's remarks on Climate Change, UN New York).
Every day, I am faced with the challenges of our troubled and complex world. But none of them loom so large as climate change. If we fail to meet the challenge, all our other challenges will just become greater and threaten to swallow us. Climate change is, quite simply, an existential threat for most life on the planet — including, and especially, the life of humankind (UN Secretary‑General António Guterres’ remarks to the R20 Austrian World Summit, Vienna, 15 May 2018)
Draft 10 June 2019 Political Declaration
Item 10. We remain determined to rise to the climate challenge with urgent and enhanced and in ambition to preserve our planet taking into account the special needs and special circumstances of developing countries, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. To do so we resolve to limit long term global warming to 1.5°C, to work for the global reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from 2020, to decline global CO2 emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 towards net zero CO2 emissions by 2050, with global CO2 emissions declining from 2020, in keeping with the IPCC 1.5°C Report. To do so we resolve to unconditionally terminate fossil fuel subsidies on immediate time-frame, and to put a full costed price on carbon (fossil fuel pollution). We commit to conserve and sustainably use of planets resources to reverse the trends of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss and promote resilience and disaster risk reduction.
The -50% CO2 emissions by 2030, reform of fossil fuel subsidies and the indispensable pricing of carbon are in the IPCC 1.5C Report, which has been approved (line by line)by all governments, so we think it should be feasible to include them. The -50% CO2 emissions 2030 was given widespread media coverage.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In general we ask that the following on global climate change be considered as essential to SDGs and the 2030 Agenda.
These have also been urged by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres and as civil society stakeholders we strongly endorse these.
The IPCC 1.5C Report science makes it certain that the priority for the SDGs in general that CO2 emissions must fall by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 and that global CO2 emissions decline from 2020. We think that (the universally recommended) ceasing of fossil fuel subsides would achieve that. Fossil fuel subsidies increased in 2018 (International Energy Agency).
These points are:
• Global CO2 emissions decline rapidly from 2020 for both the 1.5C (IPCC 1.5°C Report Figure SPM 1 ) and 2C limit (UNEP 2018 GAP Report)
• CO2 emissions fall by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 (IPCC 1.5ºC Report Headline Statement C.1)
• CO2 emissions reach “net zero” by 2050 (IPCC 1.5ºC Report Headline Statement C.1)
• Fossil fuel subsidies terminated within an immediate timeframe
• Subsidies to high-emitting, unsustainable agriculture ended
• The full-cost price of carbon charged to large central emitters (fossil fuel corporations)
• The global climate (and oceans) emergency be acknowledged.
These are also in keeping with the 2012 Rio+20 re-affirmed Rio agreements.
We point out that for limiting both 1.5°C and for 2°C global emissions decline from 2020.
We strongly endorse the following statements made by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres (with many other statements in the UN appendix to this document). (These are taken from the UN site).
UN Sec. General says climate change is an existential threat to most life on the planet, including and especially humankind, UN chief warns global summit (15 May 2018, Austria World Summit).
UN Secretary-General Guterres warns If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us (11 September 2018, UN New York).
U.N. Secretary-General Warns of 'Total Disaster' If Global Warming Isn't Stopped. The alternative to global transformation “would mean ‘a catastrophic situation for the whole world’ Sec General Guterres said he will ask leaders to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. He said he wants countries to build no new coal power plants after 2020. He wants them to put a price on the use of carbon. He wants net zero carbon by 2050 (8 May 2019, UN New York) … we must address the global climate emergency. We are in a race against time — and we are losing the race (7 June 2019, Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum, Saint Petersburg).
Crucial quotes from the 2018 IPCC 1.5ºC Special Report (in italics)
Since the IPCC 1.5ºC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, the global climate emergency has been widely recognized. Hence the IPCC 1.5ºC Report is the most recent, authoritative report regarding sustainable development.
Key to avoiding catastrophic global climate change are the IPCC conclusions in the Summary for Policy Makers for 1.5ºC mitigation, which has been scrutinized and approved by all world governments through the IPCC consensus process.
Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5ºC or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems … Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. …Limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society (INCHEON, Republic of Korea, 8 Oct 2018, IPCC 1.5°C Report press release).
In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050. For limiting global warming to below 2°C, CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 20% by 2030. Non-CO2 emissions in pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C (Headline statements C1.).
Future climate-related risks depend on the rate, peak and duration of warming. Some impacts may be long-lasting or irreversible…. (SPM A. 3.2).
CO2 emissions decline from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 or 2040 (text Figure SPM.1).
Pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot show clear emission reductions by 2030 … a 40–50% reduction from 2010 levels. Pathways reflecting current nationally stated mitigation ambition until 2030 are broadly consistent with cost-effective pathways that result in a global warming of about 3°C by 2100, with warming continuing afterwards. SPM. D.1.1.
In addition, the phasing-out of fossil fuel subsidies encourages less wasteful energy consumption (IPCC 1.5ºC Sustainable development (Chapter 5 Report Table 5.2)
Enabling this investment requires the mobilization and better integration of a range of policy instruments that include the reduction of socially inefficient fossil fuel subsidy regimes and innovative price and non-price national and international policy instruments.… Estimated at 650 billion USD in 2015 these subsidies represent 25–30% of government expenditures in forty (mostly developing) countries.… Reducing these subsidies would contribute to reaching 1.5°C-consistent pathways…. Explicit carbon prices remain a necessary condition of ambitious climate policies (Chapter 4 Enabling Rapid and Far-Reaching Change).
APPENDIX: List of official statements by UN Secretary-General António Guterres in 2018 and 2019
UN Sec. General says climate change is an existential threat to most life on the planet, including and especially humankind, UN chief warns global summit (15 May 2018 Austrian World Summit).
UN Secretary-General Guterres warns If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us (11 September 2018 UN New York).
U.N. Secretary-General Warns of 'Total Disaster' If Global Warming Isn't Stopped. The alternative to global transformation “would mean "a catastrophic situation for the whole world” Sec General Guterres said he will ask leaders to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. He said he wants countries to build no new coal power plants after 2020. He wants them to put a price on the use of carbon. He wants net zero carbon by 2050 (8 May 2019, UN New York) … we must address the global climate emergency. We are in a race against time — and we are losing the race (7 June 2019 Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum).
We need to tax pollution, not people, and to end subsidies for fossil fuels. The story of subsidies for fossil fuels is not usually well-described. Many people still think that to give fossil fuels subsidies is a way to improve living conditions of people. There is nothing more wrong than that. What we are doing is using taxpayers’ money — which means our money — to boost hurricanes, to spread droughts, to melt glaciers, to bleach corals. In one word — to destroy the world (28 May 2019 R20 Austrian Word Summit).
First, we must shift taxes from salaries to carbon. We need to tax pollution, not people. Second, we must stop subsidizing fossil fuels. Taxpayer money should not be used to boost hurricanes, spread drought and heatwaves, melt glaciers and bleach corals. Third, we must stop building new coal plants by 2020 (18 May 2019 Port Vila, Vanuatu).
These plans must show how we can reduce greenhouse‑gas emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade and get to net zero emissions globally by 2050 through strong mitigation and adaptation measures. And this is why I have been asking leaders around the world to adopt carbon pricing that reflects the true cost of emissions,… but also to end subsidies on fossil fuels, and not to start construction of new coal plants beyond 2020 (27 April 2019 Round Table Promoting Green and Sustainable Development to Implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Beijing).
Climate change is happening now and to all of us. Every week brings a new example of climate-related devastation. No country or community is immune. And, as is always the case, the poor and vulnerable are the first to suffer and the worst hit. It is clear that climate change threatens decades of development progress and places in jeopardy all our plans for inclusive and sustainable development. From increased poverty and food insecurity, to growing water stress and accelerated environmental damage, climate change is a clear and present threat. But, we must set radical change in motion.… This means ending subsidies for fossil fuels and high-emitting, unsustainable agriculture and shifting towards renewable energy, electric vehicles and climate-smart practices. It means carbon pricing that reflects the true cost of emissions, from climate risk to the health hazards of air pollution.… And it means accelerating the closure of coal plants, halting the construction of new ones and replacing those jobs with healthier alternatives for the people there employed, so the transformation is just, inclusive and profitable (28 March 2019 General Assembly’s High-Level Meeting on Climate and Sustainable Development, New York).
We are in trouble. We are in deep trouble with climate change. Climate change is running faster than we are and we must catch up sooner rather than later before it is too late. For many people, regions, even countries, this is already a matter of life and death. Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the top four in the past four years. The concentration of carbon dioxide is the highest it has been in 3 million years. Emissions are now growing again. The recent special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that warming could reach 1.5 degrees [Celsius] as soon as 2030, with devastating impacts. The latest United Nations Environment Programme Emissions Gap Report tells us that the current Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement will lead to global warming of about 3 degrees [Celsius] by the end of the century…. Emissions must decline by 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030 and be net zero by 2050…. Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement would reduce air pollution, saving more than a million lives each year by 2030, according to the World Health Organization. According to the recent New Climate Economy report, ambitious climate action could yield 65 million jobs and a direct economic gain of $26 trillion compared to business as usual over the next 12 years (3 December 2018 Secretary-General's remarks at the opening of the COP 24, Katowice, Poland).
We are experiencing record‑breaking temperatures around the world. Heat waves, fires, storms and floods are leaving a trail of death and devastation. If we do not change course in the next two years, we risk runaway climate change. We need urgent and unprecedented climate action in all areas (28 November 2018 Global Goals Summit for Heads of State and Government, Copenhagen).
Every new scientific report confirms that climate change is the greatest threat to human security and sustainable development, and that climate change is still running faster than we are.… The recent Special Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it very clear: We have little time remaining to limit global temperature rise to the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. If we miss the window, we face runaway climate change with irreversible impacts. The UN Environment Emissions Gap Report finds that most G20 economies are not on track to fulfill their Paris pledges on time. And even if they hit their targets, the world will still heat up by 3 degrees Celsius before the end of the century (1 December 2018 Remarks to G20 session on Climate and Sustainable Development, Buenos Aires).
We need to put a meaningful price on carbon and end fossil fuel subsidies, which today amount to $373 billion a year. Carbon pricing and ending fossil fuel subsidies can promote the low-carbon and climate-resilient growth we need. But, this coverage [carbon pricing] amounts to only one fifth of total global emissions. According to the 2018 New Climate Economy report, carbon pricing and ending subsidies could generate nearly $3 trillion in Government revenues or savings by 2030 (13 October 2018 Climate Finance Ministerial Meeting, Bali, Indonesia).
If we do not reverse the current trend of emissions by 2020, it may be impossible to meet the 1.5ºC goal. And that is what leaders committed to do in Paris. The effects of climate change are already upon us, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain life in the planet.… This means ending subsidies for fossil fuels and high-emitting agricultural practices [….] And it needs carbon pricing that reflects the true cost of carbon emissions — from climate risk to the health hazards of air pollution.… We must halt deforestation and address the growing impact of climate change on our oceans.… The time is long gone when we could afford delay. Each day brings further evidence of the mounting existential threat of climate change to the planet. Every day that we fail to act is a day that we step a little closer towards a fate that none of us wants — a fate that will resonate through generations in the damage done to humankind and to life on Earth (26 September 2018 UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks at the high‑level leaders dialogue on climate change, New York).
If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us.… As climate change intensifies, we will find it harder to feed ourselves.… But scientists tell us that we are far off track. According to a United Nations study, the commitments made so far by parties to the Paris Agreement represent just one third of what is needed…. I want to hear about how we are going to stop the increase in emissions by 2020, and dramatically reduce emissions to reach net‑zero emissions by mid‑century.… We are careening towards the edge of the abyss. It is not too late to shift course, but every day that passes means the world heats up a little more and the cost of our inaction mounts. Every day we fail to act is a day that we step a little closer towards a fate that none of us wants — a fate that will resonate through generations in the damage done to humankind and life on Earth (10 September 2018 Secretary-General's remarks on Climate Change, UN New York).
Every day, I am faced with the challenges of our troubled and complex world. But none of them loom so large as climate change. If we fail to meet the challenge, all our other challenges will just become greater and threaten to swallow us. Climate change is, quite simply, an existential threat for most life on the planet — including, and especially, the life of humankind (UN Secretary‑General António Guterres’ remarks to the R20 Austrian World Summit, Vienna, 15 May 2018)
International peace and demilitarization are essential for climate change mitigation as for sustainable development (Rio Declaration)
Rights for future generations with child honoring are a must for a livable climate.
COP25 December 2019 Madrid
With the failure of climate negotiations to stop emissions increasing let alone urgent rapid decreases over the past decade (UNEP GAP Report Nov 2019) and after the poor response to the UN Secretary General's (Antonio Guterres) urging that governments ensure global emissions decline from 2020, with termination of fossil fuel subsidies and pollution charges, expectations for COP25 are low. A good short account is provided by the Center for International Law Amid Climate Crisis, Will Governments Deliver Ambitious Climate Action in Madrid?
For years the IPCC and all sources have shown that global emissions decline from 2020 for the 1.5C limit and for the planet catastrophic old 2C target, but this 2020 deadline is absent from UN discussions. Though civil society (UN 2019 NGO Conference) have called for immediate decline in global emissions, the Climate Action Network Int. COP25 position statement is weak compared to its Paris position, with no demand for the 2020 emissions decline, nothing on stopping fossil fuel subsidies nor full costed charge to energy polluters.
For years the IPCC and all sources have shown that global emissions decline from 2020 for the 1.5C limit and for the planet catastrophic old 2C target, but this 2020 deadline is absent from UN discussions. Though civil society (UN 2019 NGO Conference) have called for immediate decline in global emissions, the Climate Action Network Int. COP25 position statement is weak compared to its Paris position, with no demand for the 2020 emissions decline, nothing on stopping fossil fuel subsidies nor full costed charge to energy polluters.
The UN 2019 Climate Secretariat Climate Action and Support Trends reviews national emissions targets, and still finds a substantial increase by 2030, when emissions must be declining rapidly from 2020. As usual its projections show global emissions must decline from 2020 for both the 1.5C and 2C limits.
A helpful November 2019 new approach expert review Production GAP Report shows the emissions gap based on energy production is even larger than the UNEP standard annual GAP report, and again its projections show global emisions must decline from 2020 for 1.5C and 2C.
Aslo published in November 2019 is the UNEP emissions GAP Report, which shows the same as the above. and that the UNEP 2011 Report showed global emissions had to decline by 2020.
