2 Avoiding dangerous climate change
Stabilisation targets
4. The Bali conference followed the latest report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC
gave its strongest indication yet that climate change is occurring
as a result of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity
and found that current action was failing to reduce these emissions.
It concluded that this would lead to mostly adverse impacts on
humans and the environment, including some that could be abrupt
and irreversible.[1]
5. The IPCC report indicates that if we are to
have a good chance of avoiding dangerous climate change[2]
global emissions would have to peak and start to decline by 2015,
reducing globally by 50-85% in 2050 (from 2000 levels).[3]
Annex 1 countries (developed countries as defined in the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change), would have to reduce emissions
by 25-40% by 2020 and 80-95% by 2050 (see table 1).[4]
Non-Annex 1, or developing, countries would in many cases still
be permitted to increase their emissions, but at a slower rate.
However, reducing emissions by these amounts might still only
give us a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. Reducing
these odds would require more stringent targets and earlier emissions
reductions.
Table 1: The range of difference in emissions from
1990 for Annex 1 countries and non-Annex 1 countries under two
atmospheric concentration stabilisation scenarios
| Stabilisation scenario
| Region
| 2020 |
2050 |
| 450 ppm CO2-eq
| Annex 1 | -25% to -40%
| -80% to -95% |
| Non-Annex 1
| Substantial deviation from baseline in Latin America, Middle East, East Asia and Centrally-Planned Asia
| Substantial deviation from baseline in all regions
|
| 550 ppm CO2-eq
| Annex 1 | -10% to -30%
| -40% to -90% |
| Non-Annex 1
| Deviation from baseline in Latin America,
Middle East and East Asia
| Deviation from baseline in most regions,
especially in Latin America and Middle East
|
Source: www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
The ranges presented are as a result of different
assumptions as to the degree and apportioning of effort.
6. Jennifer Morgan from E3G told us that the
IPCC 450 ppm CO2-eq scenario provides a good starting
point for negotiations, although more work needs to be done to
improve confidence in the temperature implications of this concentration.
She thought we should err on the side of caution and aim for more
stringent reductions.[5]
The UK and EU sought to get a range of figures in line with the
450 ppm scenario recognised in the Bali roadmap, but following
opposition from a number of countries, including the US, Canada,
Japan and Australia, these were not included. Nevertheless, they
appear as a footnote in the roadmap and are included in the Kyoto
Protocol work plan.[6]
7. International negotiations
must be guided by the best science we have available. This indicates
that to give us a good chance of avoiding dangerous climate change,
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases should be stabilised
at no more than 450 parts per million CO2 equivalent.
To make this happen developed countries, such as the UK, will
be required to reduce emissions by some 25-40% by 2020 and 80-95%
by 2050. Developing countries will have to limit their emission
growth. Given that these reductions appear likely to only translate
to a 50-50 chance of avoiding dangerous climate change the international
community should aim for more stringent reductions.
Sharing the load
8. Different frameworks have been proposed to
help share the burden of emission reductions. One framework that
has received a great deal of attention is contraction and convergence
(C&C). Developed by the Global Commons Institute, this framework
involves first the contraction of greenhouse gas emissions in
line with targets which aim to avoid dangerous climate change,
and then the convergence of future national limits on emissions
based on a global emissions budget. National limits would be allocated
on a per capita basis.
9. We asked witnesses whether C&C might be
a sensible and equitable way to calculate emission targets. To
our surprise it did not receive a ringing endorsement. Professor
Burke thought that C&C could be an eventual outcome, but that
the international community would not willingly and deliberately
adopt it. He believes that trying to push any particular framework
in the negotiations would cause problems. Other commentators have
indicated that C&C might not be feasible as developing
countries are likely to resist fixed and binding commitments—even
if commitments would not apply for many years and even if there
are short-term benefits to be gained by them. Developing countries
fear that the adoption of C&C might constrain their growth
in the future before they reach current industrialised country
development levels.[7]
10. Under C&C some developing countries,
such as India and Indonesia, might only be permitted to increase
emissions intensities for a very limited period, after which time
they would be required to reduce them. Other developing countries
like Thailand and Venezuela, which have relatively high per capita
emissions, would be required to reduce emissions immediately.
However, it has been argued that that C&C could provide an
equitable framework for a 'genuine long-term solution to climate
change, reducing political risk and offering businesses and investors
the sort of predictable framework they prefer'.[8]
11. Chris Dodwell, Defra's Head of International
and EU Policy on Climate Change, told us that endorsing a particular
framework for negotiation 'is the surest guarantee that we will
not achieve it'.[9] He
accepted, however, that without a framework to direct negotiations
it would be difficult to secure a global scheme that delivered
the degree of effort required. He pointed out that developing
countries were now generating their own ideas about what they
will be willing to do, and that it would be important to encourage
them to develop these domestic plans and commit to them as part
of an international agreement. The Government is calculating and
modelling the aggregate impact of actions in other countries.
It is assessing whether there are additional measures that could
be taken, such as sectoral approaches.[10]
12. We agree with the Government
that it would not be right exclusively to press for contraction
and convergence in current international negotiations, given the
political difficulties that could be created. However, contraction
and convergence should be used as a guide to the level of effort
required by each country to avoid dangerous climate change. We
are encouraged that the Government is modelling the impact of
probable domestic commitments in other countries and that it is
seeking to identify where further action might be achieved. It
must find a way of ensuring this information is used to shape
negotiations.
13. The post-2012 agreement
will have to be nuanced in its approach. Absolute emission reduction
targets, based on the IPCC scenario that leads to atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases not exceeding 450 parts per
million CO2 equivalent, will have to be adopted by
developed countries. Developing countries will also have to play
their role by adopting actions that will reduce their future emission
trajectories. We explore the likely actions
in the next chapter.
14. During these complicated
negotiations it is critically important that our negotiators do
not lose sight of the science of climate change. The 450 ppm CO2-eq
IPCC scenario, or the EU's two degree target, can not be traded-off.
They represent the minimum that we can accept.
1 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for
Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 17 November
2007, www.ipcc.ch Back
2
As defined by the EU, dangerous climate change is thought to occur
at temperature increases greater than 20C. Stabilising
atmospheric concentrations at 450 ppm CO2-eq would
give us a 50% chance of avoiding this. Back
3
Working Group III Report "Mitigation of climate change",
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, www.ipcc.ch Back
4
Working Group III Report "Mitigation of climate change",
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, www.ipcc.ch Back
5
Q62 Back
6
Ev 93 Back
7
International Energy Agency, Beyond Kyoto: Energy Dynamics
and Climate Stabilisation (Paris, 2002), p 112 Back
8
Kuntsi-Reunanen, J. Luukkanen, "Greenhouse gas emission reductions
in the post-Kyoto period: Emission intensity changes required
under the 'contraction and convergence' approach", Natural
Resources Forum, 30 (4) (2006), pp 272-279 Back
9
Q175 [Mr Dodwell] Back
10
Q175 [Mr Dodwell] Back
| 
