Climate Change

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Miliband: 2020 is year of no return for emissions

Minister's stark warning in run-up to crucial climate change summit

By Mike McCarthy, Environment Editor

The world's emissions of the greenhouse gases causing global warming should peak in 2020 and then start to decline, the British Government is proposing in the run-up to the global climate conference taking place at Copenhagen in December.

Emissions from developed nations such as Britain and the US should reach their highest point even earlier, by 2015, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, suggested to other countries in a meeting in Mexico this week, in the first move to make the crucial issue of a "carbon peak" an official target of the Copenhagen agreement.

Emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide have been rising at a far faster rate than was predicted even a decade ago, and research published by the UK Met Office last year showed that the point at which they begin to decline as a whole is absolutely vital in bringing rising temperatures under control.

A few years' delay in the peak can mean the world is committed to a significantly higher rise than would otherwise be the case, and computer simulations by the Met Office Hadley Centre indicate that for every ten years the peak is postponed, another half degree of temperature increase becomes unavoidable.

Hitherto, the issue of the "global peak" has largely remained a theoretical one, but this week Mr Miliband and British officials put it on the table at a meeting in Mexico of the Major Economies Forum on Climate and Energy (MEF), a new, pre-Copenhagen high-level discussion group which has been convened by the US President Barack Obama.

The MEF meetings will culminate in a world leaders' summit on climate change which will take place alongside the G8 meeting in Italy in July, and which will be a critical moment in the push towards a Copenhagen climate deal.

Yesterday Mr Miliband said the issue of a global peak in emissions had so far been "significantly under-emphasised". If it could be agreed, it would "irreversibly break the trend towards rising emissions," he said, adding: "It would show that something had changed. We are arguing very strongly for a 2020 global peak."

Dr Vicky Pope, the Hadley Centre's head of climate change advice, said yesterday: "Even if emissions peak in the next ten years and then decline rapidly, temperatures are still likely to rise to around two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Every 10-year delay in starting reductions will result in a further 0.5 degree increase in the most likely temperature rise, so the need for action is urgent."

The Hadley Centre's simulations last year indicated a most likely two degree rise with a 2015 peak (and world carbon emissions subsequently declining at three per cent a year to 2050), a 2.5 degree rise with a 2025 peak and a similar decline, and a three degree rise with a 2030 peak. In each case the temperature rise is a best guess - a 50-50 chance - and there are possibilities that it could be lower, or indeed, significantly higher.

All countries, including the UK, must be more ambitious in commitments to cut greenhouse gases, Mr Miliband said, ahead of the launch today of the Government's own manifesto on what needs to be achieved in Copenhagen.

Greater public pressure would play a part in ensuring the politics of negotiating a new deal catches up with the science of what needs to be done, he said. From today the Government is distributing pamphlets setting out the importance of Copenhagen, which will be sent to public bodies such as schools and hospitals, and launching a website www.ActOnCopenhagen.gov.uk.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

What warming?
[info]derekcolman wrote:
Friday, 26 June 2009 at 09:43 pm (UTC)
Once again computer modelling is being used to predict future climate. The Hadley centre model is preprogrammed with the assumption that rising CO2 levels cause rising temperatures. Naturally, with that unproven built in bias, the model must produce the given results. Junk in, junk out, as they say. If the Hadley centre care to look at their own graphs, they will see that global warming actually stopped 10 years ago, and the Earth has been cooling for 7 years. That is despite a 5% rise in CO2 levels since 2000. They might also like to read this paper from a top physicist showing that CO2 can not significantly drive global temperature:-
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
It should also be noted the IPCC climate model was drastically wrong. Even it's best case scenario (no increase in CO2 after 2000) predicted a rise in temperature of a similar magnitude to the fall that actually occured. This clearly demonstrates that computer climate models have no value. They never can, because there are many components that influence climate that are not understood and can not be quantified, and so are omitted from the model. Such a model can only fail, just as a house with weak foundations will fall down.
Re: What warming?
[info]climatewarrior wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 08:14 am (UTC)
"If the Hadley centre care to look at their own graphs, they will see that global warming actually stopped 10 years ago,"

Ah, the old "global warming stopped in 1998" myth.

This myth is rebutted at

"'Global warming stopped in 1998' - Only if you flagrantly cherry pick

"Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over.

"Answer: At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)

"According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data."


Re: What warming?
[info]climatewarrior wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 08:24 am (UTC)
Re: What warming?
[info]derekcolman wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 08:58 pm (UTC)
I am well aware that 1998 was an unusually hot El Nino year, and although that year is chosen as a starting point for the current cooling trend, it's actual temperature readings are discounted, exactly because they are anomalous. That still leaves 1999 to 2001 with no increase in warming over 1997. Then from 2002 to 2008 there has been a cooling. The graph at the URL you quoted is not helpful because it starts at 1850, and so detail of the last few years is lost because of the scale. Dare I suggest that the author of that article cherry picked that graph because it appears to support his case? If you go to this URL, and down to the graph on the 4th. page which runs from 1979 to March 2009, the finer detail can be seen. This is a sceptic's site, but the graph is available elsewhere, I just could not be asked to trawl the internet looking for it.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Appeal_to_Authority.pdf
The red line is obviously added by sceptics, so feel free to add your own trend line. The main point of using this graph is that it clearly shows the 2008 temperature at the same level as 1980. The sceptical argument here, as expounded by Prof. Bob Carter, is that the warming of the late 20th. century is not abnormal, but consistent with the trend since the end of the little ice age. Also there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, either in the short term, or going back 100,000 years. In fact the record seems to show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. If that is so, then human activity is not driving climate, and we can do nothing to change a natural trend. Furthermore the horrors forecast by Al Gore et al, are not happening. For instance hurricane activity is actually declining, and there has been no sea level rise for 3 years. I seem to be writing a book, so I will leave it there.
[info]markeyb wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 01:53 pm (UTC)
There's cherry picking on both side of the global warming argument. Perhaps it would be best to forget about these notions and just consider the amount of potential pollution we are pumping into the atmosphere instead. Issue of conservation, biodiversity and habitat destruction, which are definitely happening, are just being sidelined by pro and anti arguments of a hypothesis.
[info]climatewarrior wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 03:14 pm (UTC)
There is no difference between animal/plant conservation, biodiversity and habitat destruction and fighting climate change. Organisations like RSPB and WWF are clear that climate change represents the greatest threat to plant/animal conservation. That is why they are campaigning on the issue, for example via Stop Climate Chaos.

The "third world" development organisations are also clear that climate change represents the greatest threat to human life. That is why organisations like Christian Aid, World Development Movement, Oxfam and Cafod are campaigning on the issue, for example via Stop Climate Chaos.

See what they all have to say at http://www.stopclimatechaos.org

If anyone wants to see the likely effects of business as usual on humans, animals and plants then watch the short animation at http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html

If anyone wants to do just one small one thing on climate change ask your MEP to watch the video at http://www.thebigask.eu/the-big-ask-film-clip it might even inspire you to do more.


I just watched one of you links...
[info]samanthagearing wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 10:01 am (UTC)
...wakeupfreakout is brilliant. I'm sharing it with everyone I know. It's gonna take alot of hard work, but changing are attitudes and the way we live is imperative. Thanx for posting the link. :)
[info]samanthagearing wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 09:46 am (UTC)
I agree. I'm a little confused by this global wraming is or is not occuring. Whatever, morally we should just not pollute the earth with all our rubbish. We cannot control the weather...
Pollution Pollution Pollution
[info]ironspiderzero wrote:
Tuesday, 7 July 2009 at 06:33 am (UTC)
I'm in full agreement with Markeyb - even if we can't agree on climate change 'yes/no', can we at least agree that the unrestrained pumping of pollution into the environment is not a good thing.

If we address the issues of pollution, be they terrestrial, aquatic or atmospheric, then we might find climate change and a host of other, pollution-related problems get dealt with in the process. We're faced with a number of tough choices which, because they're either politically unpopular or are seen as expensive options, get shelved over and over again. If Government doesn't step forward soon and take a lead on this we may run out of time and options.
CO2 Plan
[info]redroseandy wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 04:07 am (UTC)
The Government must adopt a near-zero CO2 policy now. There is no point in setting reduction targets without a plan for how to do it. Tony Blair boasted of reading many, but adopted none. We expect better of politicians in the fight against the biggest threat to humanity.
Growth: The problem not the solution
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 12:12 pm (UTC)
Ed Miliband and Obama's MEF meetings will achieve nothing until people like Gordon Brown face up to the fact that you cannot combat carbon emissions, AND double the size of the world economy in the next twenty years without first switching to virtually zero fossil fuels.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/01/economy.alistairdarling?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Since eighty per cent of the world's energy currently comes from oil, gas and coal, I would think that is a very big ask indeed, and almost certainly it's not going to happen.

The latest wheeze: dumping shed loads of lime into the oceans is, like carbon capture, another techno fantasy, of the drowning-man-clutches-at-straw variety.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/06/lime-sea-carbon-dioxide-emissions






Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date