Comment on: Thoughts on Copenhagen: Michael Pawlyn
Michael's comments favouring GCI's C&C as the basis of the global climate deal at Copenhagen in December [COP-15] is welcome.
His comments on risk are too.
The Government's are giving us all a 50:50 chance of not exceeding a global temperature rise of two degrees based on the following 'C&C premise': - a 50% cut in emissions globally by 2050 with equal per capita entitlement globally by that date.
This year, in the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee enquiry into targets in the Climate-Act, GCI has challenged this saying that an 80% cut by 2050 with equal per capita by say 2020 gives us better odds.
The technical work undrpinning this claim is here: - http://mbf.cc/Lo8F
Exceeding the two degrees threshold presages runaway rates of climate change. Our Government needs all the help it can can get to organise the avoid this.
The rule for Copenhagen is simple: - if for reasons of urgency the rate of contraction must be accelerated, the rate of convergence must be accelerated relative to that.
As Rajendra Pachauri (Chair, IPCC) said recently: "If we are to limit global temperature rise to no more than 2-2.4 degrees Celsius, global emissions must peak no later than 2015 and start declining thereafter… So when one looks at the kinds of reductions that would be required globally, the only means for doing so is to ensure that there’s contraction and convergence and I think there’s growing acceptance of this reality. I don’t see how else we might be able to fit within the overall budget for emissions for the world as a whole by 2050. We need to start putting this principle into practice as early as possible."
More information: -