Beware the self serving finger waggers

After the big bang of the final declaration at the Paris climate change conference we have barely heard a whimper. Yes, there have been distractions, with terrorism monopolizing headlines at least for the past few weeks. But have no doubt Climate change will return once again. Have no doubt we we will hear the all to frequent, the all too shrill calls to action supported by exhortations to save the planet before the rapidly approaching tipping point. Yes you detect my skepticism. My issue is not with Global Warming (see my earlier post Credo on Climate Change re my personal position) but with the whole circus that seems to be the way the modern world approaches and executes change.

Consider COP21. The wash-up is a range of 'historical', 'unprecedented', global commitments by almost 200 nations to stop the world heating by 2 degrees over the next 85 years. It sounds fantastic and I guess I believe it is. Without getting into the plausibility of the result, the real miracle of COP21 is not just getting any agreement at all, although that is admittedly an achievement, but the swifty that the largest emitters have pulled on the rest of the world. Yes I called it a swifty, a sleight of hand, a subterfuge. The largest contributors to global warming have gained commitments from smaller contributors that are clearly far in excess of their contribution to the problem.

"The largest emitters have pulled a swifty on the rest of the world"

Consider the facts

The greatest contribution to climate change since industrialization has come from USA and Europe with significant contributions by China , Russia and Japan. (see graphic below.)

China is most notable for the speed with which it has become the largest annual emitter and a significant driver of global warming in its own right, despite its much more recent industrialization.

The historical contributions of just 5 countries, if you will permit me to call Europe a country, to global warming is approx 75%. Three quarters of all global warming (to 2011) is due to just these 5. One would therefore expect that the contribution to the mitigation effort should be commensurate. Quite simply if you caused 75% of the problem you should clean up 75% of the problem. You clean up your own mess. Well, let's see.

A vast majority of the pledges made at Paris were based on a nominated percentage reduction of GHG emissions below some baseline rate by a nominated deadline. The actual percentages and baseline dates vary but do not really impact on the problem. At first glance it may seem quite reasonable that each country makes commitments that reduce their own emission rates, especially if the reductions are of the same magnitude, and indeed most countries have chosen roughly similar reductions. So each country is effectively making equal commitments based on their own contribution. That's ok, isn't it?
 No it isn't.
Climate change is the result of the cumulative impact of emissions over decades. So any mitigation should relate to the cumulative impact of a country.

But all Paris pledges are based on emissions rates as opposed to cumulative historical emissions.

And here is the problem. The large emitters, Europe and the US, and to a lesser extent Russia and Japan, went through industrialization a long time ago and have had high emissions for a much longer time. Their current annual emissions may still be high, but nowhere near their cumulative impact.

Lets look at the numbers. While the top 5 contributors to climate change represent 75% of cumulative emissions they only represent 50% of current emission rates. (see below)

Source  CAIT Climate Data Explorer

So pledges based on current emission rates will always favor the earlier industrialized countries. 

But wait there is more

If that were not bad a enough there is a second problem.  GHG emission rates do not take into account the impact of imports and exports. The GHG generated in the production of goods is generally not included in the emission rates attributed to a country. So the producing country  has the burden of the emissions which are enjoyed by the consuming country. Countries like the US and Europe are major importers of high GHG products and therefore benefit from this error, while exporters like China bear the burden in their emission figures.

China is the elephant in the room

But let's not start feeling sorry for poor China. Yes, China can rightly expect an adjustment in their emission rates for the impact of exports, and it is not insignificant. It amounted to some 22% in 2005 and would, I guess be similar today (see my earlier post Seeking a fair GHG reduction target - Part 5: Who is responsible? which presents some of these figures with sources). However, even after adjusting for the exports error, China remains the largest annual emitter, by far.

In any case, China has virtually opted out of any reduction commitments. It has agreed to decrease the carbon intensity of its economy by 60-65% by 2030. But it had already committed to a 40% reduction by 2020, and it seems its extended commitment is really 'Business as usual', requiring it to simply continue along its current path of building more gas/nuclear power stations than coal fired ones.

China has justified its stance on the basis that its industrialization is relatively recent and that it should be accorded the same 'free emissions ' that the rest of the industrialized world enjoyed over the decades. That too may sound like a reasonable argument, but the figures don't stack up. China's Emissions per capita is already equal to that of Europe and also rising fast. So it should increase the standard of living of its citizens as is the case for Europe with no greater emissions than Europe's.

So like many arguments posed in this messy battle for the moral high-ground, it is self-serving, deceptive and false.

Everyone is complicit

Given these rather blatant errors in the accounting of emissions and the specious justifications for low pledges, why haven't the strong CC adherents and their media hangers-on called this out? Let's face it the chatterati are not really good at nuances. They don't fit well into a 15 second grab. As for the strong CC adherents, it is a silent acquiescence. Given that the errors in emissions accounting serve to apply more pressure to more countries for ever higher commitments, they choose to let it run. In short they are tacitly complicit.

So beware! Beware the self-serving finger-waggers wielding their dagger of shame at the smaller countries. Don't be seduced by false measures and beguiling justifications, and face the unpalatable truth, that despite the inspiring words uttered. Despite the wide acclaim by the cheering masses. Despite their much lauded commitments at Paris, our leading polluters, the United States, Europe and China, have not accepted their fair share of the burden of GHG mitigation. Shame on them.

Hot Air?

Last Friday, precisely timed for maximum impact before the start of the Climate Change(CC) talk-fest in Paris, Bill Shorten announced ALP's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction policy. The new target is a reduction of 45% from 2005 levels by 2030, a dramatic increase over the Governments measly 26%.

What was he thinking? "Captures the imagination... and the headlines.", "Almost double the promises of the goverment! That should stop the erosion of votes to the Greens", "It will surely take the gloss off Turnbull's 'Green' credentials"

The reaction, however may have put a lie to these hopes. Ignoring for the moment the ecstatic acclaim from the strong CC adherents who react with rapturous applause to any increase in commitments, the reaction from the man-in-the-street has been one of quiet indifference. The long battle for hearts and minds in the CC arena has desensitized us. Too many warnings of impending disaster which have failed to come to fruition. Rain filling our reservoirs, climate models' failure in predicting the 18 year pause in temperature increases, and the Antarctic ice growing year by year have left us, lets just say, less reactive.

That leaves the commentariat, that pervasive potpourri of press and professors who manage our thoughts day by day. If there is one word to describe their reaction it is skepticism. No applause, just questions, "What will this cost?", "Why bid more than the major emitters?" , "Why pick a fight on an issue you are unlikely to win?", "Why does the ALP want to make CC an election battleground when it has lost this battle in the past?" and again"What will this cost?"

But this is no joke

While one can take comfort from the observation that it is most unlikely that Mr 15% will have the problem of putting such a policy into practice, this is serious. Any commitment to significant reductions is expensive. Shorten's commitment comes to a cost of $30B /year by 2030 compared to Turnbull's already significant $18B. Such commitments should not be taken lightly, especially when it could be based on borrowed money!

There is little doubt that every nation fully realizes the very significant costs entailed by reduction targets. Why else would the targets be so hotly disputed!

Australia in perspective

Mr 15%'s puff of Hot Air is mere breath compared to what is being unleashed on Paris over the next two weeks. The awesome gathering is a mega-event in which no emissions were spared in ensuring every well meaning environmentalist worth his credentials would attend.

So what are we to make of Australia's targets compared to those of the rest of the world and in particular the largest emitters of the world.

In the lead up to COP21, as the event is affectionately known, countries were encouraged to submit their reduction targets in the period from the expiry in 2020 of their last commitment to 2030. It seemed a good idea at the time, try to establish some bidding war, with countries trying to out-do each other to win 'noble' prizes. To some extent it may have worked, as it was encouraged by a cacophony from the cheering crowds of CC adherents.

However it also had the effect of motivating the more canny countries to be less direct, more convoluted in their commitments. Instead of reduction targets stated as a simple "reduction in emissions below the level at say 2005 by 2030" we have a number of alternative forms of commitment, commitments to reach 'Peak' emissions at some time in the future, or to reduce the "carbon intensity of the economy". The result is a diverse range of commitments making them impossible to compare.

The Problems with Paris

Before taking a look at the top CC culprits, let me take issue with the approach being taken in Paris. The idea that each country nominates what they are willing to pledge is counter-productive. You end up with the potpourri of commitments determined by each country's political climate rather than what is required to limit global warming to the desired 2 degree rise.

A much cleaner approach would have been to;-

1. Identify and agree what total world reduction is to be made by the end of the century then narrow it down to 2030
2. Identify and agree what is the equitable proportion of the world contribution each country should make
3. Set the resulting figures as the target for each country

I also take issue with the use of simple 'emission rates' without accounting for trade and without looking at cumulative historical emissions. I have already rabbited on about these issues at length in my interminable series on "Seeking a Fair Reduction target" (parts 1,2,3,4,5), so will leave it to the interested reader to read these earlier posts.

The pledge parade

The table below provides some perspective on the problem at hand. It shows the top 20 contributors to global warming over the period from industrialization (~1880) to 2005.

Table 1: Top 20 contributors to CC from ~1880 - 2005

This is not a list of countries with the highest annual emission rates. This is a list of the 20 countries that have contributed most to global warming between ~1880-2005, and taking into consideration the impact of trade, ie the carbon content of exports have been transferred to the importing country. Admittedly 2005 is a full decade ago, but that is the most recent figure readily available (see Seeking a fair GHG reduction target - Part 5: Who is responsible? ). No doubt the figures have changed since then, my guess is that China has moved up the list.  The table also shows the pledges most of the countries have made in the lead up to the Paris conference. These were taken from http://climateactiontracker.org/

Pledges by the top 5

The US has committed, to the extent that a lame-duck president in his final year can commit, to a 30% reduction in annual emissions below 2005 levels by 2025.
Brazil has committed to 37% below their 2005 level by 2030.
Russia has submitted a 25-30% reduction below 1990, in strong contrast to reports that Putin believes Global Warming is a fraud.
India committed to reduce emissions intensity by 33-35% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Figure 1 ; China is the largest annual emitter by a large margin

Now for the elephant in the room, China. China has committed to peak its emissions by 2030 and then reduce its carbon intensity by 60% by 2030.  Putting carbon intensity aside, China's bid is sheer chutzpah, With already by far the greatest emission rate , virtually double that of the US (see Figure 1 above), China is not committing to reduce its emissions at all. In fact it will continue to increase them for the next 15 years!

Figure 2 China's per capita emissions are the same as Europe's

China's argument that it is just catching up in the global emissions stakes is no longer true. Its per capita emission rate are equal to that of Europe (see Figure 2) and as evidence in Table 1 it has already been responsible for a significant portion of global warming to date. Incidentally this is partially true for both India and Brazil who also argue that they are only now going through the industrialization that was enjoyed by the developed world without emissions restrictions and therefore they too want to have their 'free emissions'. Alas the figures indicate this is not the case. These countries for various reasons have been major contributors to the global warming to date, therefore they need to get on board and start mitigating their emissions.

Australia's commitment of  26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030 is modest. However we do have a good record of meeting and exceeding our commitments, in contrast with many other countries. So this counts in our favor.  Also our emissions rate and ,in particular, our per capita emissions rate, do not tell the whole story. With a small population spread on a large continent with 20% forested area, Australia is a net absorber of GHGs and is helping to clean the emissions of the more populated countries.

Irrespective of the merits of these arguments we are small fry, some 19th in our contribution to global warming. Our annual emissions are dwarfed by China's. Indeed our total emissions are less than the annual growth in China's emissions.

Without real commitments and consequent action by China and India to reduce their emission all other pledges including Turnbull's 26%, or were it to come to pass, Shorten's heroic 45% will come to naught. Indeed without China and India making real commitments the Paris conference will turn out to be just hot air.