When we wrote our @NatureClimate commentary ( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... we thought readers would& #39;ve many examples of failed #climate deadlines on their minds, and decided to skip that part.
But obviously, there& #39;s need for a SUB-THREAD ON EVIDENCE FOR FAILED CLIMATE DEADLINES [r1a)
But obviously, there& #39;s need for a SUB-THREAD ON EVIDENCE FOR FAILED CLIMATE DEADLINES [r1a)
While many older colleagues seem to like the piece ( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... many of the younger discussants didn& #39;t seem to know to which pre- #IPCC #SR15 experience we draw upon. Others, irrespective of age, simply might not want to deal with uncomfortable knowledge [r1b]
Although there are many earlier examples, let& #39;s start with the & #39;100 months& #39; campaign that began in 2008, obvs. ended in 2016 and led Mike Hulme to write his first piece on & #39;deadline-ism& #39; https://mikehulme.org/deadline-ism-when-is-it-too-late/">https://mikehulme.org/deadline-... ( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [1a]
Looking at @AndrewSimms_uk call for action https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissionsended">https://www.theguardian.com/environme... you can imagine this being written in 2018 (just change 2C into 1.5C): "the IPCC says so", "time is running out". Well, time ran out (in 2016), but deadlines are still in fashion http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [1b]
You can of course say that "100 months" was just a political campaign. But there& #39;s also a history of scientists setting #climate deadlines. Like the "St James Palace Memorandum" of Nobel Laureates in 2009, just before COP15. http://www.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/sjp_memorandum.pdf
(https://www.newscientist.com/wp-conten... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [2a]
(https://www.newscientist.com/wp-conten... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [2a]
The "St James Palace Memorandum" explicity says that 2C "can only be achieved" by a global peak of GHG emissions by 2015. Yet, it did not happen. But signatories chose not to stick to their deadline afterwards.
http://www.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/sjp_memorandum.pdf
(https://www.newscientist.com/wp-conten... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [2b]
http://www.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/sjp_memorandum.pdf
(https://www.newscientist.com/wp-conten... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [2b]
Instead, some of the high-level signatories of the 2009 declaration came up with a new deadline in 2017 - now GHG emissions are said to need to peak by 2020. We have "Three years to safeguard our climate"
https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201
(https://www.nature.com/news/thre... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [3a]
https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201
(https://www.nature.com/news/thre... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [3a]
In a Twitter conversation about that article, co-author @rahmstorf promised he would personally call off the 2C target if emissions don& #39;t peak by 2020 https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/880419849293504513">https://twitter.com/rahmstorf... He later deleted that tweet
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [3b]
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [3b]
But the figure from said @Nature article indicates several options how to extend that deadline again, first and foremost the size of the remaining carbon budget and the option to include net negative emissions
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [3c]
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [3c]
Before I continue: my apologies to @rahmstorf, he didn& #39;t delete the tweet, I didn& #39;t find it in my overcrowded deadlines folder https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/880417640635920385
That& #39;s">https://twitter.com/rahmstorf... all I expect: if you set a deadline stick to it and say "game over" when deadline is missed ( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [3d]
That& #39;s">https://twitter.com/rahmstorf... all I expect: if you set a deadline stick to it and say "game over" when deadline is missed ( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [3d]
When I was younger, I expected scientists to stick to these kind of deadlines. That& #39;s what led me to say already in 2011 that 2C isn& #39;t feasible (which didn& #39;t make me a lot of friends, obvs.) ( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [r2a]
Then one day a modeller told me w/ a smile that they& #39;ll never call 2C off (no 1.5C scenarios back then), they& #39;d just push more negative emissions into scenarios. It was meant as a joke, obvs., but it got me interested into deadline flexibilities ( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [r2b]
I found that there are many flexibilities that enable a constant shift of deadlines, modifying the meaning of 2C (or 1.5C), including lowering probabilities, allowing temporary overshoot, allowing more carbon removal.
https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/climate-modifying-the-2-c-target/
(https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/public... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [r2c]
https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/climate-modifying-the-2-c-target/
(https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/public... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [r2c]
All these modification options are not only threatening the integrity of climate policy, but also of scientific advice to climate policy (and eventually #climate research itself)
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [r2d]
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [r2d]
Here are some articles I wrote about deadline modifications (stemming of course from political inaction, but at the same time masking inaction)
https://www.nature.com/news/policy-climate-advisers-must-maintain-integrity-1.17468
https://www.nature.com/news/poli... href=" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.427
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/... href=" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0026-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/... href=" https://rdcu.be/0TiG
(https://rdcu.be/0TiG"... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [r2e]
https://www.nature.com/news/policy-climate-advisers-must-maintain-integrity-1.17468
https://www.nature.com/news/poli... href=" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.427
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/... href=" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0026-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/... href=" https://rdcu.be/0TiG
(https://rdcu.be/0TiG"... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [r2e]
But back to examples. Consider the annual UNEP Emissions Gap Report, analysing the pledges made in Copenhagen and compare the aggregate estimate with a 2C-compatible level (in 2020/2025/2030).
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [4a]
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [4a]
When UNEP started this effort in 2010 the Gap was already huge https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2010,">https://www.unenvironment.org/resources... and because of insufficient action, it grew over time, with the prospect that the Gap could never be closed by 2020.
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [4b]
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [4b]
While emissions kept rising, UNEP moved the goalposts, increasing emissions benchmark values, by introducing a new scenario category.
https://rdcu.be/0TiG
(https://rdcu.be/0TiG"... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [4c]
https://rdcu.be/0TiG
(https://rdcu.be/0TiG"... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [4c]
From a modelling perspective, such a change in methodology is perfectly fine, but used at the science/policy interface it leads to the impression among policymakers that it will always be five finutes to midnight
https://rdcu.be/0TiG
(https://rdcu.be/0TiG"... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [4d]
https://rdcu.be/0TiG
(https://rdcu.be/0TiG"... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [4d]
Before I go on a brief vacation, some words on the 1.5C targets and remaining carbon budgets. Many activists & policymakers treat budgets as if we deal with a calculation/methodology that never changes, e.g. @FridayForFuture https://twitter.com/FridayForFuture/status/1144527222553960448
(https://twitter.com/FridayFor... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5a]
(https://twitter.com/FridayFor... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5a]
But in fact they change all the time (scientific progress is of course part of that story), but there are many different methodologies even today, as highlighted in this recent @Nature paper by Rogelj et al. http://rdcu.be/bKIWi
(https://rdcu.be/bKIWi&quo... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5b]
(https://rdcu.be/bKIWi&quo... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5b]
Looking at remaining budget numbers today (420 Gt for 66% from 2018), these are the product of a changed methodology in #IPCC #SR15 that led to an extension of the budget by ~300Gt. Some scientists found that questionable, NGOs and activists didn& #39;t
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5c]
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5c]
Without that change in methodology (which I& #39;m not an expert on - see maybe @Peters_Glen& #39;s blog https://cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/klima/beyond-carbon-budgets)">https://cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/... the 1.5C budget would almost be gone (below a figure with the old numbers. Of course, policymakers found that convenient
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5d]
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5d]
This move & #39;forced& #39; (and I mean & #39;forced& #39;, because they didn& #39;t like it) organisations like @MCC_Berlin to reset their carbon clocks https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html">https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/resear... Of course they describe the methodology, but does the public (or activists) notice?
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5e]
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5e]
As a side effect, the budget for 2C also grew substantially. According to #SR15, the new net zero GHG year for 2C is now beyond 2100. And the new net zero GHG year for 1.5C is 2067 (not 2050, as often reported, that& #39;s CO2 only).
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5f]
( http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5f]
So, budget calculations do change, there& #39;s no "we only have 12 years left", and theoretically, it could also go the other way again. So maybe better focus on a target that isn& #39;t moving all the time: net zero (GHG) emissions https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/policy-digests/targeting-net-zero-emissions
(https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/policy-di... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5g]
(https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/policy-di... href=" http://rdcu.be/bLiok )">https://rdcu.be/bLiok&quo... [5g]