Gaius Publius: IPCC’s “Carbon Budget” Gives One-in-Three Chance of Failure

Posted on by

By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and contributing editor at AmericaBlog. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius and Facebook. Cross posted from AmericaBlog

I recently made several points that need to be hammered over and over between now and the U.N. climate meeting in Paris in late 2015:

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 or CMP11 will be held in Paris, France in 2015. This will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties (CMP 11) to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. Leadership of the negotiations is yet to be determined.

The purpose of the Paris meeting is to sign a binding agreement on carbon emissions. The purpose of the IPCC is to create a scientific framework for the discussions of the treaty-making FCCC.

All of the talk in the lead-up to Paris will be about how much “burnable carbon” we can still emit. In other words, what’s our remaining “carbon budget”? Or more to the point, how much more money can Exxon make and still be one of the good guys?

Built into those U.N. discussions are a couple of assumptions fostered by the IPCC:

▪ That 2°C global warming is a safe target.

▪ That doing what gives us a 66% chance of achieving the 2° warming target is a good enough.

▪ That Exxon, the Saudis, David Koch and others deserve to make some money from their buried assets.

You’ll hear about this endlessly in the next year or so. Now is the time to counter with the truth and tell it to everyone you know.

None of Those Statements is True

There’s not a word of truth to any of the bulleted statements above, and the time to counter them is now, before David Gregory and George Stephanopoulos tell a hungry nation — “Here’s what we know to be true.” If Big Media latches onto the statements above, the climate war is lost until a real crisis, like Miami sinking beneath the waves, occurs.

So please, help counter the lies. They exist only to keep the carbon industry (David Koch, Rex Tillerson and Exxon) in wealth and operation. Our goal in the next few weeks will be to show that:

▪ 2°C warming takes our species far outside the climate zone that supports human civilization. Once outside that zone, the earth will stay there for thousands or millions of years.

▪ A 66% chance of species survival is Russian roulette with a three-chambered gun. Only David Koch, whose life expectancy is less than your child’s, wants you to lift it to your head and fire. If you pull the trigger, you take the bullet and he makes more money.

▪ Exxon, the Saudis, the Kochs and their ilk deserve nothing more than they already have, and probably a whole lot less.

This piece is the first in a series — Why there’s no more “carbon budget.” The reasons are many; this is one of them.

The IPCC’s Own “Carbon Budget” has a One-in-Three Chance of Failure

David Spratt at the invaluable Climate Code Red has a brilliant, cogent and clear explanation of the worse-than-Russian-roulette odds in the IPCC’s own data. Spratt (my emphasis; numbers in parentheses refer to his footnotes):

For the last two decades, climate policy-making has focused on 2°C of global warming impacts as being manageable, and a target achievable by binding international treaties and incremental, non-disruptive, adjustments to economic incentives and regulations (1).

But former UK government advisor Professor Sir Robert Watson says the idea of a 2°C target “is largely out of the window”, International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol calls it “a nice Utopia”, and international negotiations chief Christiana Figueres says we need “a miracle”. This is because, in their opinions, emissions will not be reduced sufficiently to keep to the necessary “carbon budget” (2).

The numbers are these: According to the IPCC, from pre-industrial times through the year 2011, man has emitted a total of 515 GtC (gigatons, or billions of tons, of carbon), mainly in the form of CO2, a greenhouse gas. At present, we continuing to emit carbon, at the rate of 10 GtC per year. So by 2015, total emissions will be at least 545 GtC.

Through the magic of faith that 2°C warming is “safe,” the IPCC has come up with a total of 790 GtC “left to burn,” which leaves about 250 GtC left in the “budget.” But that allowable budget comes with a condition — that you accept a 33% chance of failing to keep to that (already magical) warming target.

It’s all a matter of odds. The more carbon we burn, the less likely we are to stay below any warming target. And David Spratt has found a marvelous chart that lays out all of the percentages for the IPCC’s (magical) 2°C warming target.

Here’s that chart (click to open large in a new tab). I’ll walk you through the explanation after you open it.

spratt_carbon-budget_Slide07-666x500

To orient yourself, start with the left (Y) axis. This represents cumulative carbon emissions since pre-industrial times. The gray area under the 515+ level represents emissions through 2011 — a part of the “budget” we’ve already spent. Everything above that is future emissions.

(A note about units for the Y-axis — 1 PgC, “petagram” of carbon, is the same amount as 1 GtC, gigaton of carbon. It’s two ways to say the same thing.)

The X-axis shows the odds of success, defined as “staying below 2°C warming,” for a given emissions target.

The blue line shows that as cumulative emissions go down, the odds of “success,” as defined, increase. See where the blue line crosses below 515 GtC? That’s the 90% chance of “success” point. In other words, if you want a less than 1-in-10 chance of failure, stop emitting carbon. Completely. And now.

I’ll deal with the 2°C “unicorn” in a separate piece. 2°C warming really is a unicorn, with a dangerous dragon inside. But for now, let’s pretend, along with the IPCC, that 2°C is totally safe, so long as we don’t go higher.

So what does the graph say? It says, take your choice. If you want just a two-thirds chance of staying below the (mythical) 2°C warming, you can let David Koch and Exxon get richer. If you want a 90% chance? Kill the carbon industry now. 

You read that right. If we want a 90% chance of staying below a pretend-safe 2°C warming, we have to Stop Now. Zero future emissions.

Or don’t. Because it’s always a choice, right? I’m serious. It is always a choice, and that’s the good news. We really do have control.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

28 comments

  1. Paper Mac

    The 2 deg C target seems to be bandied about solely in the climate policy community for the consumption of the public and for clueless politicos. The scientific literature generally acknowledges that target is probably blown at this point absent immediate and precipitous decarbonisation of most Western economies, and my sense is that this is at least privately or tacitly understood in policy circles as well. I sometimes wonder how much of the internal militarisation of Western states is related to this.

    1. BondsOfSteel

      The 2 deg C target is looking more unlikely everyday… but I can see why we need to keep focused on it. Above 2 degs really bad _irreversiable_ things happen. Under 2 degs, we can come back…. save the planet. Over 2 degs… and life on this planet starts to die off.

      I find it frustrating that the main consequence that people think of when thinking of global warming is sea water rise. There’s no way if we follow our current trend (3.5deg) that Miami will be underwater at the end of this century. Plus, how does this affect someone in OK or KS?

      We should be talking about extinctions. There’s a good chance that 40%-70% of species may go extinct if we follow our current trend (3.5deg) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_risk_from_global_warming.

  2. lakewoebegoner

    in practical terms…. (as grams of CO2 is too theoretical for 99% of people—and the figures are roughly speaking, as the exact numbers depend on your circumstances):

    1 lazy hot water shower = about 15,000 btu of energy.
    1 one-way commercial flight between London and NYC per passenger = about 220 shower’s worth of energy.
    1 private jet flight between London and NYC per passenger = 1,500 shower’s worth
    10,000 miles of driving @ 25 mpg = 3,000 showers.
    1 year’s worth of heating/cooling = 3,000 to 9,000 showers (this number has very large variation depending on location, behavior, home size, etc)

    my gist is that biggest immediate impact that an individual can have, beyond voting/political involvement, is changing the thermostat and how you drive.

    staying in the right lane, and taking it easy on the thermostat will save you money and actually make a big difference in your energy usage and isn’t some meaningless hippie slogan.

    1. susan the other

      Lots of cities/countries are looking at banning cars within city limits now, today. Rural communities are dependent on cars, but not cities. And cities put up great banks of smog every day from traffic. That would make a huge difference as well, beyond just driving slowly which is a good idea for us all. It’s hard to imagine what that kind of a disruption to the habits of all the city dwellers around the world will look like. If everyone cooperated, it could go soothly, like mobilizing for a war on carbon. There are a lot of malls and other abandoned commercial buildings in cities right now (also think China’s ghost developments if close to big cities) that can be turned into decent apartments, bringing more people into the no-car zones. Maybe need a few more elevators and toilets. But hey.

      1. susan the other

        But it makes me so immoderate when I am moderated for not being immoderate… reflexivity?

      2. Newtownian

        I have no problem with bigger carbon reaction and less traffic but the trouble is we have been locked into this form of transport by 50 years of infrastructure, habit and convenience. And China is now copying this. From my various visits to the US I’ve also realized your interstates are your literal arteries without which you cant function. And we aren’t much better.

        Beyond this there is the matter of the sick and the infirm who cant get around otherwise – and safety regulations even. For example for fear of car accidents parents in Oz have to drive or walk their kids to school if they have to cross a road – needless to say cars and SUVs are the only option.

        A simple start would be smaller cars but the SUV rules even in the inner city – crazy.

        1. skippy

          “A simple start would be smaller cars but the SUV rules even in the inner city – crazy.” – Newtownian

          And what is the preferred luxury car joke about Melbourne… yes a Cayenne, in the city of high quality intercity rail.

          Skippy… well the death spiral wrt line energy vs. PV is going to make all of that even more interesting down the road [pun intended].

          1. Newtownian

            Interesting times indeed. Not quite sure what you mean by ‘line energy’ though – overhead tram type cables? Sub-road charging points? ( I look forward to the road works).

            Cayennes. Clear proof that a lot of people have got more money than sense.
            Ironically two of my closest greenie friends have 4WDs too albeit small – to get to their bush properties – this isn’t exactly a criticism but rather something I raise to point out once you get out of the deepest poverty trap all of a sudden cars become routine again.

            1. skippy

              Line energy refers to grid i.e. PV [solar] is killing the consumer base. w/ a heavy debt load from the last spate of upgrades e.g. prices can’t be spread out resulting in higher price per customer. Which results in more customers switching to PV, death spiral becomes self reinforcing.

    2. Foppe

      my gist is that biggest immediate impact that an individual can have, beyond voting/political involvement, is changing the thermostat and how you drive.

      Actually, the most consistent and effective way to reduce your carbon footprint is to switch to a fully plant-based or vegan diet; makes for a reduction of more than 50%. Everything else is pretty much pocket change. See here for some introductory info on what that entails.

      1. different clue

        If everyone switched away from grainfeedlot beef to strictly range-and-pasture beef, I wonder if the photosynthesis-driven carbon dioxide suckdown and bio-sequestration in the soil and biolife in/under the soil would exceed the amount of carbon “not emitted” via a vegan diet. Someone should do the science.

        1. Foppe

          It’s impossible to “produce” cows at the current rate if all you could feed them was grass, so your suggestion is economically impossible; aside from that, you have no reason not to switch to a vegan diet until your ideal world is realized.

          1. different clue

            Where did I ever say “produce cows at the current rate” on range and pasture? You made that up as a diversionary baited hook in hopes that I would bite. Better luck next time.
            Of course I don’t know how down the “rate of produce cows” would go on range and pasture. Neither do you. Someone should do the science. I wonder what Alan Savory or others would say? I wonder how much or little “rate of produce cows” would be achieved through tightly-managed tightly-scheduled paddock-to-paddock mob grazing as discussed in the pages of Acres USA and elsewhere. And how much skycarbon would Savory-style re-greening the manmade deserts and paddock-to-paddock mob grazing suck down and soil-store in the meantime? Someone should do the science.
            Meanwhile, “whatever amount” of strictly only grass-range fed beef bought, sold, and eaten subsidizes that very same “whatever amount” of skycarbon plantsucked back to earth and bio-sequestered in perennial plantmass and soil. So I will spend my meager beef-budget (if any) on grassfed-not-grainfed beef in order to do my little part to fund diffuse broadacre carbon bio-resequestration, special veganist pleading to the contrary notwithstanding.

  3. John

    The problem is the MSM and their owners are keeping the public confused by formulating the argument: there is scientific uncertainty about the climate debate. What they are conflating is the political uncertainties. To be clear, the climate scientist consensus is 100% certain man is responsible for a big chunk of the causes of global warming. We could become extinct if we tried to burn it all, long before it is all extracted.

    Other bench warmers (pun intended) poison the debate like AEI. They promote messages that are at odd with the scientific consensus view.

    With this kind of electrified environment climate scientists, who are well suited to publicly challenge deniers, are chastened, hemmed in from speaking up.

    If we cannot pull in some elected ‘denier’ officials and sway them into becoming believers very soon, then we,the world, are in serious trouble. Carbon does not stop at one’s border.

    1. Newtownian

      A slightly more regional poll I’d like Gaius to explore is the matter of California. From Oz it looks a lot more environmentally progressive. But you have an awareness prompter at the moment – the drought.

      In Oz when we had our Millennium drought and with it heightened awareness of climate change – then it rained as it will to a degree in California again.

      The pendulum swung by 20 points in a couple of years. Memories and understanding evaporated and once again the shortness of our economic horizons was on display. Worse it gave the local Tea Party subbranch the chance to hijack everything with the support of the local Koch equivalents – Murdoch (who you all know) and Rhinehart (Godzilla has nothing on this one) for example.

      So if Ladbrokes will take the bet I bet on climate changing.

  4. Brucie

    What’s worse is that once the arctic ice cap is gone, in a few short years, the amount of forcing due to albedo change will be nearly as great as the forcing due to greenhouse gas forcing.

    http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/07/albedo-change-in-arctic.html

    Professor Wadhams estimates the present summer area of sea ice at 4 million square km, with a summer albedo of about 0.60 (surface covered with melt pools). When the sea ice disappears, this is replaced by open water with an albedo of about 0.10. This will reduce the albedo of a fraction 4/510 of the earth’s surface by an amount 0.50. The average albedo of Earth at present is about 0.29. So, the disappearance of summer ice will reduce the global average albedo by 0.0039, which is about 1.35% relative to its present value.

    As NASA describes, a drop of as little as 0.01 in Earth’s albedo would have a major warming influence on climate—roughly equal to the effect of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would cause Earth to retain an additional 3.4 watts of energy for every square meter of surface area.

    Based on these figures, Professor Wadhams concludes that a drop in albedo of 0.0039 is equivalent to a 1.3 W/sq m increase in radiative forcing globally.

    The albedo change resulting from the snowline retreat on land is similarly large, so the combined impact could be well over 2 W/sq m. By comparison, this would more than double the net 1.6 W/sq m radiative forcing resulting from the emissions caused by all people of the world (see IPCC image below). Professor Wadhams adds: “Remember that this is going to happen in only about 3 years if the predictions of alarmist glaciologists like myself are correct”.

  5. Brucie Bruce

    What’s worse is that once the arctic ice cap is gone, in a few short
    years, the amount of forcing due to albedo change will be nearly as
    great as the forcing due to greenhouse gas forcing.

    http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/07/albedo-change-in-arctic.html

    Professor Wadhams estimates the present summer area of sea ice at 4
    million square km, with a summer albedo of about 0.60 (surface covered
    with melt pools). When the sea ice disappears, this is replaced by
    open water with an albedo of about 0.10. This will reduce the albedo
    of a fraction 4/510 of the earth’s surface by an amount 0.50. The
    average albedo of Earth at present is about 0.29. So, the
    disappearance of summer ice will reduce the global average albedo by
    0.0039, which is about 1.35% relative to its present value.

    As NASA describes, a drop of as little as 0.01 in Earth’s albedo would
    have a major warming influence on climate—roughly equal to the effect
    of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which
    would cause Earth to retain an additional 3.4 watts of energy for
    every square meter of surface area.

    Based on these figures, Professor Wadhams concludes that a drop in
    albedo of 0.0039 is equivalent to a 1.3 W/sq m increase in radiative
    forcing globally.

    The albedo change resulting from the snowline retreat on land is
    similarly large, so the combined impact could be well over 2 W/sq m.
    By comparison, this would more than double the net 1.6 W/sq m
    radiative forcing resulting from the emissions caused by all people of
    the world (see IPCC image below). Professor Wadhams adds: “Remember
    that this is going to happen in only about 3 years if the predictions
    of alarmist glaciologists like myself are correct”.

  6. Eeyores enigma

    The other half of this is their listed solutions of ramping up renewables and other infrastructure for encouraging conservation all of which require massive resources and energy while at the same time proposing incremental carbon reductions.

    Which is it, reduce carbon releasing processes, or ramp them up but only for this list of uses? Because you can only have one at this point.

    It boarders on Psychotic.

    1. susan the other

      We need to revive the old concept of ‘man power’ or ‘horse power’ because if everything we do to fix things requires even more carbon, then it’s going to get pretty discouraging. Maybe a national service program to employ those between 18 and 25 who are able bodied. A resurrection of labor even. And human power can be designed into the fabric of the future beginning now.

  7. susan the other

    But here’s a truly pleasant thought: War, the greatest polluter in the history of the earth, next to volcanoes and big fat meteors, will have to be seriously contained.

  8. Oregoncharles

    “the climate war is lost until a real crisis, like Miami sinking beneath the waves, occurs.”

    Don’t buy property, or even live, below 200 ft. of elevation. (We had our place surveyed a few years ago: 220 ft., a hundred miles up 3 rivers. Oceanfront, sometime fairly soon.)

    1. Newtownian

      A topic close to my heart – last year I went to a retirement investment seminar. All ok sort of until they got to ‘have we got a deal for you’. I was fascinated to learn about great real estate opportunities on the New Jersey shoreline just to the west of Manhattan – in basically a flood area.

      Actually if anyone is really curious about flooding prospects go to http://flood.firetree.net/ . This Google earth linked Wizard lets you see the floodable areas across the whole globe. And the 1 to 3 meter impacts are not trivial.

      Warning – best only for Millenialists otherwise its too depressing.

      1. different clue

        Why is it depressing? It outlines the opportunities for reality-based landowners at or below the floodline to sell property to faithbased landseekers living above the floodline. People who “don’t” “believe” in global warming deserve to buy land at or under the flood line and should be given every form of assistance possible to buy that land.

        1. Newtownian

          I take your point of course. The trouble is it will still hit us smarties too.
          Its all very well having a place above the flood line – but all of our infrastructure is currently built on the assumption that there will be no sea rise – if you travel along the coast you will see all these bridges that will get undermined/salinated leaving roads and railways going from nowhere to nowhere. And we will have to pay for this too.

  9. Crazy Horse

    Gaius,
    Thanks for laying out the rosy, optimistic aspects of the climate change scenario. LOL

    Now if you want to come closer to describing the changes that will take place to the Earth’s biosphere, factor in short term forcing from methane release by melting permafrost and sub-sea gassification of methane clathrates with as much as 80 times the greenhouse potency of Co2. Its significance depends upon dynamic feedback mechanisms that are so difficult to predict that the IPCC scientists don’t even include them in their models— but that doesn’t make them disappear. In point of fact unexpected rates of methane release are one plausible explanation for observed rates of warming in the high Arctic that are much greater than recent models predicted.

    Meanwhile envision the worldwide collapse of ocean ecosystems as the acidification levels pass the threshold where the microorganisms on the bottom of the food chain pyramid can no longer produce their skeletonal structures and die off. Dead oceans will no longer feed human populations as they have done throughout our history and they cannot continue to serve as a buffer to absorb more human-generated Co2 as they have done during the brief industrial age.

    I wouldn’t worry to much about losing Miami, New York, and other coastal cities. By the time sea levels rise enough to inundate them the human die-off will have progressed enough that nobody will want the worthless things. And if you are hoping and praying that humans as a species will adopt wisdom and forethought as their basis for collective action you definitely have not read a single paragraph of history.

  10. Fair Economist

    The 2 degree target isn’t crazy; while *this* interglacial has never gotten to anything like that, previous interglacials have, without massive extinctions. So it’s very unlikely that 2 degrees would produce global catastrophe. Of course, if you look at the costs of even a 20-foot increase in sea level (very likely with just 2 degrees) it’s a slam dunk to just control carbon emissions instead. Let’s see – lose Miami, Venice, New Orleans, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, London, Alexandria, Shanghai, most of Bangladesh, and much much more – or walk and take the train. Such a difficult decision.

    Russian roulette with two bullets – that’s right on the money.

    Dealing with the devils of the fossil fuel business is a tactic hoped to induce them to go along with real restrictions. Doesn’t seem to be working.

Comments are closed.