Hopes for strong 2015 climate deal fade, as risks grow

OSLO/LONDON Wed Nov 6, 2013 12:11am EST

Head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat Yvo de Boer listens during a plenary session at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos January 29, 2010. REUTERS/Michael Buholzer

Head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat Yvo de Boer listens during a plenary session at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos January 29, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Michael Buholzer

OSLO/LONDON (Reuters) - World governments are likely to recoil from plans for an ambitious 2015 climate change deal at talks next week, concern over economic growth at least partially eclipsing scientists' warnings of rising temperatures and water levels.

"We are in the eye of a storm," said Yvo de Boer, United Nations climate chief in 2009 when a summit in Copenhagen ended without agreement. After Copenhagen, nations targeted a 2015 deal to enter into force from 2020 with the goal of averting more floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels.

The outline of a more modest 2015 deal, to be discussed at annual U.N. climate talks in Warsaw on November11-22, is emerging that will not halt a creeping rise in temperatures but might be a guide for tougher measures in later years.

Since 2009, scientists' warnings have become more strident and new factors have emerged, sometimes dampening the impact of their message that human activity is driving warming.

The U.S. shale boom helped push U.S. carbon emissions to an 18-year low last year, for instance; but it also shifted cheap coal into Europe where it was used in power stations.

Despite repeated promises to tackle the problem, developed nations have been preoccupied with spurring sluggish growth. And recession has itself braked emissions from factories, power plants and cars, a phenomenon that may prove short-lived.

Emerging economies such as China and India, heavily reliant on cheap, high-polluting coal to end poverty, are reluctant to take the lead despite rising emissions and pollution that are choking cities.

"Our concern is urgency" in tackling climate change, said Marlene Moses of Nauru, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States whose members fear they will be swamped by rising sea levels. "Vague promises will no longer suffice."

She wants progress when senior officials and environment ministers from almost 200 nations meet in Warsaw to discuss the 2015 deal, as well as climate aid to poor nations and ways to compensate them for loss and damage from global warming.

Yet many governments, especially in Europe, are concerned that climate policies, such as generous support schemes for solar energy, push up consumer energy bills.

Some want to emulate the success of the United States in bringing down energy prices via shale gas - a fossil fuel that can help cut greenhouse emissions if it replaces coal but at the same time can divert investments from cleaner energy.

PATCHWORK OF PLEDGES

Many Warsaw delegates say the 2015 accord looks likely to be a patchwork of national pledges for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, anchored in domestic legislation, after Copenhagen failed to agree a sweeping treaty built on international law.

The less ambitious model is a shift from the existing Kyoto Protocol, agreed in 1997. That set a central target for emissions cuts by industrialized countries and then shared them out among about 40 nations.

But Kyoto has not worked well, partly because the United States did not join, objecting that the treaty would cost U.S. jobs and set no targets for big emerging nations. Russia, Canada and Japan have since dropped out.

Warsaw will be the first meeting since the U.N.'s panel of climate scientists, the main guide for government action, in September raised the probability that climate change is mainly man-made to 95 percent from 90 and said that "substantial and sustained" cuts in emissions were needed.

TREATY

A leaked draft of a second report by the panel, due in March 2014, suggests climate change will cause heatwaves, droughts, disrupt crop growth, aggravate poverty and expose hundreds of millions of people to coastal floods as seas rise.

"Evidence is accumulating weekly, monthly as to how dangerous this will be," said Andrew Steer, head of the World Resources Institute think-tank in Washington. Every year of delay added $500 million to the cost of fixing climate change.

He said there were signs of progress, such as a plan in June by U.S. President Barack Obama to achieve a goal for cutting emissions by 2020 and the start of carbon trading in China. "But they don't add up" to a solution, Steer added.

Any deal weaker than a treaty for shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energies is anathema to poor nations.

The 2015 deal is unlikely to include deep enough emissions cuts to achieve a U.N. goal set in 2010 of limiting temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit).

Temperatures have already risen by 0.8C (1.4F) since the Industrial Revolution and are on track to cause more heatwaves, floods and rising sea levels despite a hiatus in the pace of warming at the Earth's surface so far this century.

A more flexible approach for 2015, championed by the United States, raises risks that many nations will simply set themselves weak goals, hoping others will take up the slack.

But it may have a better chance of ratification by national parliaments. The idea is that negotiators will find a way to compare the ambition of promises and develop a mechanism to ratchet the weak ones up in coming years.

(Additional reporting by Susanna Twidale in London, Agnieszka Barteczko in Warsaw and Barbara Lewis in Brussels)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
Miner49er wrote:
Fossil fuels will all be burned, whether for the benefit of mankind, or by natural forces. Most fossil fuels that ever existed have already burned through natural forces. The carbon is recycled naturally.

Those seeking to change the successful status quo and impose enormous burdens on others who are simply going about their legal business should bear an overwhelming burden of proof.

Human CO2 emissions are 3.2% of total CO2 emissions. The 2012 increase in ambient atmospheric CO2 was 4% of human emissions, or 0.128% of total human and natural CO2 emissions. 99.872% of all these CO2 emissions was naturally recycled (“captured and stored”) by the earth. Most of this was converted through natural processes into carbonate rock, such as limestone (CaCO3). Carbonate rocks are the largest reservoir of carbon on earth. Even a liberal-arts slacker and failed divinity student can see the CO2 in the CaCo3.

Many or most scientists believe that natural warming causes increases in ambient CO2, rather than vice-versa. Now that temperatures are stabilizing or decreasing, ambient CO2 should also stabilize or decrease.

When that happens, the theory of anthropogenic global warming will be definitively falsified. Without the need of approbation-seeking scientists and computer models. And no global panel or committee or nations can do anything about it.

Nov 06, 2013 11:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
SteveK9 wrote:
Worried about economy? Nothing could be more misplaced. Here’s an idea: put people to work. Building Nuclear Power plants would be my preference, but put them to work. Seems like a wise investment, and it would cause economies to boom.

Unfortunately we live in an age when the wise men think that having millions of people who want to work, sitting around doing nothing is a good system, or is some sort of natural catastrophe beyond their ability to change.

Nov 06, 2013 6:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SteveK9 wrote:
Worried about economy? Nothing could be more misplaced. Here’s an idea: put people to work. Building Nuclear Power plants would be my preference, but put them to work. Seems like a wise investment, and it would cause economies to boom.

Unfortunately we live in an age when the wise men think that having millions of people who want to work, sitting around doing nothing is a good system, or is some sort of natural catastrophe beyond their ability to change.

Nov 06, 2013 6:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.