<p class="date"><a href="http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/52289">http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/52289</a><br></p><p class="date">Feb 6, 2013</p>
<h1 class="articleHeadline">Are we heading for 6° temperature rise?</h1>
<p class="standfirst">Climate scientist Kevin Anderson believes
scientists at the interface of climate and policy may have used naive
assumptions when modelling for a 2°C target.</p>
<div class="articleBody">
<p>They say never judge a book by its cover, but chances are a lecture
entitled "Real clothes for the emperor: facing the challenges of climate
change" will be fairly down-to-earth. That proved to be the case when
Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the
University of Manchester, UK, gave the Cabot Annual Lecture 2012 in
Bristol, UK, in November 2012. </p><p>
In response to an audience member who commented that most climate
scientists were simply trying to pay their bills, Anderson said "I don't
think it's OK to walk past a mugging on the way to pay the mortgage.
Climate scientists need to be good citizens too. Our science tells us we
are killing people in poor parts of the world by putting our lights on
and we need to make people think about that. Scientists need to start
standing up for what they believe in. By staying quiet we are
legitimizing it." </p><p>
Back in 2011, Anderson published <a href="http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/45239">a paper</a> in the <cite>Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A</cite>
on how he felt today's integrated assessment models, which combine
climate data with economic data, are dangerously flawed. Why? Because
they are based on "naive" assumptions for factors such as emission
growth rates and the date of emission peaks, they limit annual
energy-emission reduction rates to between 2 and 4%, and assume uptake
of geoengineering as well as a high penetration of nuclear power
alongside untested carbon-capture and storage technologies. </p><p>
"Because integrated assessment models typically use similar and
inappropriate sets of assumptions, they repeatedly come up with the same
narrow and fundamentally flawed answers," Anderson told <cite>environmentalresearchweb</cite>
at the time. In his November talk, on the topic of emission growth
rates used in models that were lower than real-world growth rates, he
said "We've always underplayed everything we possibly can – we've done
exactly what the sceptics said but in reverse." In some cases, reports
have been issued that assumed emissions peaked several years before the
date of the report, leading to "policy recommendations premised on
owning a tardis". Similarly, some scenarios assumed that emissions from
developing countries would exceed those from developed countries well
into the future, whereas in fact this happened in 2006. </p><p>
"With few exceptions the scenarios out there hide or massage historical
emissions and emission trends," said Anderson. "So they change the
framing of where we are today. They underestimate short-term growth out
to the peak of emissions. The peak choice is Machiavellian at best.
No-one thinks that we're going to peak in 2016 and yet virtually every
model will peak in 2016, which gives you a nice answer for your
policymaker." </p><p>
Anderson thinks it has been obvious for the last 10 years that we are
pointing towards 4–6° "but it's interesting to see orthodox
organizations coming out and saying this now". International Energy
Agency (IEA) chief economist Fatih Birol emphasizes how current emission
trends are "perfectly in line with a temperature rise of 6 °C", which
he notes "would have devastating consequences for the planet", said
Anderson. And consultancy PwC's Low Carbon Economy Index 2012 reports
that even doubling our rate of carbon-emission reduction would still
lead to emissions that are consistent with 6° of warming. "To give
ourselves a more than 50% chance of avoiding 2° will require a six-fold
improvement in our rate of decarbonization," states the report. </p><p>
The Copenhagen Accord aims "to hold the increase in global temperature
below 2° Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with
science and on the basis of equity". Anderson stressed that it is
below, not a 50:50 chance of, 2°, and that the phrase "consistent with
science" is quite radical and "on the basis of equity" even more so.
"Most nations have signed up to this so I think we should hold our
leaders to account," he said, adding that just this May, leaders of the
G8 nations at a meeting in Camp David reiterated their commitment to do
what was necessary to maintain "the increase in global temperature below
2 °C above pre-industrial levels, consistent with science". The UK
government has adopted the Committee on Climate Change's budget for a
63% chance of exceeding 2°. "Can that 60-odd per-cent chance be
reconciled with 'hold the temperature below 2 °C and take action on the
basis of science'? Our job as scientists is to stand up and say 'hang
on, that doesn't really fit'." But according to Anderson, scientists
repeatedly stay quiet and silence is consent. "That process of consent
is really quite invidious in the whole climate-change story." </p>
<h3>Time for change</h3>
<p>So what is the solution? Since infrastructure lasts a long time,
Anderson believes it will take 20 to 25 years to get significant
decarbonization of energy supply systems. "It's energy demand that
really matters," he said. It's possible to change demand technologies in
one to 10 years and to change behaviour immediately; most car journeys
use vehicles that are less than eight years old, for example. "I'm not
saying the supply side is not important but it cannot get you off the
[emission] curve anywhere near fast enough," Anderson continued. "You'll
have much higher temperatures if you just rely on engineers to come up
with [supply] technologies that will solve the problem in 2025 or 2030."
</p><p>
Anderson thinks the group of climate scientists working at the interface
between science and policy are massaging their assumptions to give a
more palatable picture and make a 2016 emission peak sound doable. "Some
people ask if James Hansen is too extreme," he said, "but extreme
adjectives reflect the science." Scientists using words like
"challenging" and "doable" make a 2° limit for temperature rise sound
feasible, he added. But in the pub or at Chatham House Rules events,
many scientists are saying "we cannot tell the public that" when it
comes to reporting how low our chances are of staying within the 2°
boundary. "I think we're on for 4–6 °C but we just can't be open about
it," said Anderson. </p><p>
In his talk, Anderson detailed how a respected political scientist has
said "too much has been invested in 2 °C for us to say it is not
possible – it would give a sense of hopelessness that we may as well
just give in". Building on this, a government scientist told Anderson
"We can't tell ministers and politicians that it [2 °C] is impossible;
we can say it's a stretch, ambitious but that with political will 2 °C
is still feasible." </p><p>
Anderson's view, in contrast, is that "I'm paid by the state and I will
say exactly what my findings are". He reckons 4° is challenging but
achievable. But a 4° global-average future could mean temperature rises
on land of 5–6°, along with large regional variations. Potentially, the
hottest days of the year could see an additional 6–8° of warming.
Roughly 20–30,000 people died in the 2003 heatwave in Europe as it was,
without any additional warming on top. "There's a widespread view that a
4° future is incompatible with organized global community as we see it
today," said Anderson. "It's likely beyond adaptation. I would go so far
as to say that we should avoid 4° at all costs." </p>
<h3>Cutting the future</h3>
<p>There is a small amount of good news. An outside chance of exceeding
2° requires emission cuts of at least 10% per annum, said Anderson –
basically about a 40% reduction in energy consumption in the next three
years, 70% by 2020 and complete decarbonization by 2030 – at least for
the wealthier nations. Anderson reckons about 40–60% of the world's
energy emissions come from 1–5% of the population. This includes
"climate scientists, every journalist, pontificator and sceptic, every
other OECD academic, everyone who gets on a plane once a year" and
anyone earning more than £30 k a year. "So we're the major emitters – we
know who they are. Are we prepared to make changes to our lives now or
have them forced upon us?" Anderson believes there is a lot we can do.
"We don't require the whole world to do something, we require a small
proportion of the world to change what they do today for the next 10 or
20 years while we put low-carbon supply in place." </p><p>
Behaviour change can be instant, he said. Cutting energy use by, for
example, turning off lights today can save more carbon than you might
think because of the energy lost in electricity production, transmission
and so on. Currently a typical vehicle in the UK emits around 175 g of
carbon dioxide per kilometre but many diesel and petrol cars now achieve
levels below 100 g and some manage as low as 75 g. Despite this, the EU
target for average car emissions is an uninspiring 130 g of carbon
dioxide per kilometre by 2015. Setting ambitious targets, along with a
slight rise in the number of passengers per vehicle, could reduce
emissions 60–70% by 2020, added Anderson. </p><p>
That said, a maximum temperature rise of two degrees is looking more and
more unlikely. "It's a wake-up call of where our rose-tinted spectacles
have brought us," said Anderson. "Real hope if it's to arise at all
will be from a bare assessment of the scale of the challenge that we now
face and that's what I've tried to show [in this talk]." With clarity
and imagination Anderson thinks we could. </p>
</div>
<div id="aboutTheAuthor">
<h3>About the author</h3>
<p>Liz Kalaugher is editor of <cite>environmentalresearchweb</cite>.</p><p>------------------------------------------<br></p><p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></p>
</div>