1. Kevin Anderson Tyndall Centre University of Manchester July 2011 Climate Change: going beyond dangerous … brutal numbers & tenuous hope or cognitive dissonance?

2. … explore the void between rhetoric and reality on climate change mitigation

3. Before thinking of responses to climate change what ’s the question?

4. INTERNATIONAL ‘ To hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius , and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity’ Copenhagen Accord (2009)

5. ‘… must ensure global average temperature increases do not exceed preindustrial levels by more than 2°C ’ EU

6. UK “ average global temperatures must rise no more than 2°C ” Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009)

7. So the question is clear: how do we ensure a good chance of staying below 2 °C?

8. … but why 2 °C ?

9. 2001 2°C ‘Guardrail ’ Dangerous Acceptable

10. 2001 2009

11. 2001 2009

12. Is 2°C – dangerous or extremely dangerous? Is 1°C the new 2°C?

13. … what mitigation is necessary to stay at or below 2 °C … how do we split the global carbon budget between Annex 1 (OECD) & non-Annex 1 (non-OECD)? … sticking with 2 ° C

16. How does this scientifically-credible approach change the challenge we face?

17. the latest emissions data factor in… what is the scale of the global ‘problem’ we now face?

18. ~ 2.7% p.a. last 100yrs ~ 3.5% p.a. 2000-2007 ~ 5.6% p.a. 2009-2010 Things are getting worse! Global CO 2 emission trends?

20. early emissions peak = lower emissions reduction/year

21. 2015 peak 2020 peak 2025 peak (Anderson & Bows. 2008 Philosophical Transactions A of the Royal Society. 366. pp.3863-3882) Total greenhouse gas emission pathways

22. 50:50 chance of Dangerous Climate Change (Global) Unprecedented reductions (~ 10% pa from 2020) (Anderson & Bows. 2008 Philosophical Transactions A of the Royal Society. 366. pp.3863-3882)

23. Even then total decarbonisation by ~2035-45 necessary … and for energy emissions? (with 2020 peak) 13 of 18 scenarios ‘ impossible’ 10-20% annual reductions – even for a high probability of exceeding 2°C

26. If this all looks too difficult … what about a 4°C future?

27. For 4 °C & emissions peaking by 2020 a ~ 3.5% p.a. reduction in CO 2 from energy is necessary ... & such a reduction rate is achievable so is aiming for 4°C more realistic?

28. For 4 °C global mean surface temperature 5 °C - 6°C global land mean … & increase °C on the hottest days of: 6 °C - 8°C in China 8 °C - 10°C in Central Europe 10 °C -12°C in New York In low latitudes 4 °C gives up to 40% reduction in maize & rice as population heads towards 9 billion by 2050

29. There is a widespread view that a 4 °C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond ‘ adaptation ’ , is devastating to the majority of eco-systems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e. 4 ° C would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level). Consequently … 4°C should be avoided at ‘ all ’ costs

30. A fair deal for non-OECD (non-Annex 1) … what ’s left for us (OECD/Annex 1) ?

31. Anderson-Bows: (CO 2 only) (Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions – Jan 2011 ~40% chance of exceeding 2°C)

32. Growth 3.5% p.a Peak 2025 Reduction 7% p.a. (2x Stern!) Anderson-Bows: (CO 2 only) (Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions – Jan 2011 ~40% chance of exceeding 2°C)

33. Anderson-Bows: (CO 2 only) (Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions – Jan 2011 ~40% chance of exceeding 2°C)

34. Peak ~2010 Reduction ∞ % p.a. Anderson-Bows: (CO 2 only) (Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions – Jan 2011 ~40% chance of exceeding 2°C)

35. But even this non-Annex 1 pathway is too optimistic? … focus on China (& India)

36. China emissions (CO2 only 2010) 7.5GtCO2 (25% global) GDP growth p.a. (ten year trend) 10.5% p.a. India emissions (CO2 only 2010) 1.65GtCO2 (6% global) GDP growth p.a. (ten year trend) 7.4% p.a. China & India emissions & growth

40. … add in India

43. Does all this matter? Currently no (?) global modeling & scenarios take serious note of China & India (ccc analysis & UK budgets premised on China & India peak ~2017) (~all low-carbon IAMs scenarios have 2005 –2016 peaks, & growth 1-2% p.a.) … first impressions are that the numbers outlined here, or anything approaching them, have fundamental implications for mitigation/adaptation analysis & policy, globally and for all nations

44. 2°C … a political & scientific creed ?

45. “ It is possible to restrict warming to 2°C or less ..with at least a 50% probability .” AVOID (2009) For ~2°C it is necessary “ … the UK cut emissions by at least 80% ... by 2050 . The good news is that reductions of that size are possible without sacrificing the benefits of economic growth and rising prosperity . ” CCC p.xiii & 7 (2009) “… a low stabilisation target of 400ppm CO2e can be achieved at moderate cost … with … a high likelihood of achieving this goal.” ADAM p.19 (2009) Orthodox view

46. “ … it is difficult to envisage anything other than a planned economic recession being compatible with stabilisation at or below 650ppmv CO 2 e.” Anderson & Bows 2008 “ … the 2015-16 global peaking date (CCC, Stern & ADAM) implies … a period of prolonged austerity for Annex 1 nations and a rapid transition away from existing development patterns within non-Annex 1 nations. ” Anderson & Bows 2011 An Alternative take from the same science

47. How do two such fundamentally different interpretations of the challenge arise from the same science?

49. Have we got the agency to achieve the unprecedented reductions rates linked to an outside chance of 2 ° C ? Before despairing …

52. Little chance of changing polices aimed at 6.85 billion … but how many people need to make the necessary changes?

53. Pareto ’ s 80:20 rule 80% of something relates to … 20% of those involved ~50% of emissions from ~1% of population run this 3 times ~80% of emissions from ~20% of population

55. Are we (principally Annex 1 ) sufficiently concerned to … make or have enforced substantial personal sacrifices/changes to our lifestyles NOW ?

56. Technical AGENCY – another message of hope

57. Fuel Production, Extraction &Transport Powerstation Transmission Electricity Consumption Light 10 50 54 120 133 The Electricity system Demand opportunities dwarf those from supply in short-term

59. To conclude …

61. EU So where does this leave us? Manchester Mandate mitigate for 2 °C, plan for 4°C mitigate for 4 °C, plan for 2°C Bows’ reflection … we’re heading for the worst of all worlds

62. But “… this is not a message of futility, but a wake-up call of where our rose-tinted spectacles have brought us. Real hope, if it is to arise at all, will do so from a bare assessment of the scale of the challenge we now face.” Anderson & Bows. Beyond ‘dangerous climate change Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Jan 2011

63. … a final message of hope .. “ at every level the greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the clarity and imagination to conceive that it could be different.” Roberto Unger

64. 1-person living in 3 bedroom houses patio heaters 10 halogen bulbs lighting the kitchen 2 tonne 4WD car to transport 70kg flesh 3miles driving children to school business tycoons with private jets

65. academics flying to climate change conferences musicians flying to climate change concerts celebrating the excesses of celebrities ‘ right’ to fly & drive when & to wherever we want year-round strawberries hen parties in Prague & birthdays in Barcelona double door refrigerators & home cinema second homes, 2 cars & 3 TVs

66. & all with up to 9 billion people living on our planet!

67. Kevin Anderson Tyndall Centre University of Manchester July 2011 Climate Change: going beyond dangerous … brutal numbers & tenuous hope or cognitive dissonance?