This
letter and enclosures will be available on my website at www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters
This
will make it much easier to use the references.
Oaklands
New Mill Lane
Eversley
Hants
RG27 0RA
Tel 0118 973 2365
email gormans@waitrose.com
To the Minister for Energy
and Climate Change. 14th May 2010
Dear
Chris Huhne,
I
am an engineer and independent researcher into geoengineering. The central
argument for geoengineering is that we can’t do without it. We can’t keep
global temperature within safe limits by emissions reductions alone.
Geoengineering is not politically correct among climate scientists and this has
led to very distorted information on what might have been agreed at Copenhagen
or could possibly be achieved at future meetings.
With
the help of my MP James Arbuthnot I have been communicating with the previous
Minister for Climate Change.
This
letter is a reply to Ed Miliband's response (attached) to my letter of 28th
January 2010 (attached) It hardly seemed worth writing immediately when there
would be a new Minister for Climate Change in a couple of months so
congratulations on your new cabinet position. I hope you will be more
open-minded than Ed Milliband and Joan Ruddock.
As
usual in such replies I am referred to a document to read. On reading this, Lord Stern's pre-Copenhagen
briefing paper, I find that the figures, the numbers and some wording are
identical to those in the Confidential Copenhagen Secretariat Note of December
2009 (pages 9-15 of my document "Why Copenhagen Failed" at www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm )
This
suggests that the authors are a small close-knit group and it is probable that
they are the same scientists who constitute the IPCC working group 3 which was
described recently by Chris Green, Professor of Economics in the Global Environment and Climate Change Centre at McGill University in
the following way:
WG III has repeatedly stated that we
have the technologies to stabilize atmospheric concentration at almost any
desired level and at modest, or even very low, cost. What is lacking according
to IPCC WG III is "political will". The WG III statements re
available technologies are unsupported by the evidence (see papers by Hoffert
et al Nature 1998, Science, 2002, papers for which Tom Wigley was a co-author).
These papers were wholly (Nature 1998) or largely (Science, 2002) ignored by
IPCC WG III.
----if you are looking for unsound analysis the main place you will find it
is in IPCC WG III---an analysis that arguably has had the biggest impact on
climate policy and advocacy of any of the IPCC WGs. --- the flawed analysis of
IPCC WG III - makes climate stabilization technologically much easier and
economically less costly than it will be.
It
is interesting that two other very different organisations have recently
published very similar conclusions. The
American Enterprise Institute hosted on 25th of February the publication of
their sponsored report “Evaluating the Geoengineering Option” www.aei.org/event/100207
and www.aei.org/docLib/Bickel%20paper-The%20Climate%20Engineering%20Option.pdf
and
in March, Friends of the Earth published their briefing note on geoengineering.
( www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/geoengineering.pdf
) (The first page of this document is particularly concise and interesting.
Attached)
This
position -- "that only geoengineering can avoid severe and unacceptable
consequences of climate change.-
Emissions reductions alone cannot" is exactly the position that I
have argued since my first study of the subject three or four years ago.
Parts
of the letter are obviously standard but just in case there is any confusion, I
have never expressed "concern about the need to prevent a global
temperature increase of more than 2°C" I have always argued that it would
be completely mad to allow the temperature rise to get anywhere near 2°. This would be three times the present
situation which is 0.7°C global average but 3 or 4°C in the Arctic and
Antarctic. 2°C global average would
imply 8 to 10° at the poles. When we
see what is happening in the Arctic and Antarctic now, the 2°C global average
limit just seems rash and dangerous. (Note the effect of polar
amplification-one pager attached)
It is
interesting that the FoE document brings out this point, saying "It
should also be stated that the 2 degree threshold identified by governments was
a political judgment that has been interpreted as an acceptance, as least by
rich countries, of temperature increases below this threshold.”
It is also
interesting that the poorer countries convened a conference in Cochabamba,
Bolivia in April to challenge this acceptance. One of the central conclusions
of this conference was that one degree centigrade is the only acceptable limit
on global warming.
The
second part of that second paragraph reiterates the complacent attitude on
emissions. Joan Ruddock gave the same
confident message to the House of Commons on 1st March as follows:
“Since Copenhagen, we have seen
support for the Copenhagen Accord grow. As of 22 February 2010, 69 countries
had listed targets/actions in the Accord to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.
These countries account for nearly 90 per cent. of global
emissions. This willingness of many countries to take substantial domestic
action, demonstrates that-with ambition-the international community has the
opportunity to come together to tackle dangerous climate change effectively.
But there is still more to do. We must continue to encourage these countries to
deliver the most ambitious end of their offers if we are to deliver our goal of
limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. And we will
continue to campaign for countries to include these offers in a comprehensive
legally binding treaty”.
The
official commitments that she refers to are now available on the COP15 website
and are identical to those unofficially available when I wrote "Why
Copenhagen Failed" and I can therefore confirm that we are on target for
an increase in global emissions of at least 20% by 2020. There is no sign of when emissions might
peak. We are miles away from any hope
of keeping to the 2°C limit. My calculations
are based on the official Cop 15 declarations and the US Environmental
Information Administration figures listed and described by the Guardian on
Monday the 30th of November 2009 as "the only credible source of carbon
emissions for every country in the world".
Very
recently my conclusion has been confirmed by the Potsdam Institute in a paper
published in Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7292/full/4641126a.html
The
central conclusions were;
· Global emissions in 2020 could thus be up to 20% higher than today ( I would say will be at least!)
· Current pledges mean a greater than 50% chance that warming will exceed 3°C by
2100 ( 2070 is
my estimate -on their figures)
The third paragraph admits that carbon intensity targets “allow some room for emissions to rise". Unless one assumes that China's total GDP growth will be less than 66% by 2020 their emissions are bound to rise. Far more likely is a rate of economic expansion similar to the last 10 years, which will result in a doubling of emissions by 2020. By then China's emissions will be 2 1/2 times those of United States and India’s will be fast approaching America’s. (Using the official Copenhagen declarations.) (see attached One-pager “CO2 Emissions.What the Big Countries are Doing”)
The
fourth paragraph introduces exactly the ways of disguising the numbers that I
suggested Mr Miliband should be careful to avoid. It is perfectly reasonable for a country to be allowed more
emissions if they do something else, like extra forestry, to compensate. This must not however be allowed to change
the emissions number or we just lose track of way we are. (Incidentally the Stern totals and the Copenhagen
Secretariat Note totals include deforestation.
This was thought to be about 20% of global total emissions but very
recent research suggests that these figures have been completely wrong by
factor of two since 1980 or so. All
country numbers that I used in Why Copenhagen Failed are for energy-based
emissions.)
The
phrase "the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to
around 15% by 2020" also needs to be watched carefully. It probably means the use of wood chippings
instead of coal. There are several
problems with this. Firstly the burning
still produces CO2 so the emissions are still there and shouldn't be taken off
the basic numbers otherwise we lose track of the calculations. (E-On is
advertising in British newspapers that they are reducing their emissions by
this means). It is probable that when
the use of wood chippings started they were truly waste. Even then the alternative of just burying
them would have trapped the carbon. Now
there is evidence that this trade is going the same way as biofuels. Existing forest is being destroyed to supply
this new, totally artificial, demand.
In
all, this letter shows no intention of analysing the situation properly or
considering a change of direction even though the failure in Copenhagen was so
obvious to everyone. It just confirms
the attitude of Joan Ruddock and Lord Adonis at the hearings of the
Parliamentary Select Committee for Science and Technology that they will not
consider geoengineering because even talking about it will stop people
concentrating on emissions reductions.
I hope there will be new open-minded attitude from the new government
and I would be pleased to discuss this with yourself or one of your associates.
Yours
sincerely,
John Gorman M. A. (Cantab.) Chartered Engineer
Member of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers
Member of the Institution of
Engineering and Technology
Cc Rt.Hon. James Arbuthnot MP
Attached to letter as subsequent
pages
Letter 28th Jan from me.
Letter 7th March from ed
Milliband
Friends of the Earth briefing note
on Geoengineering. Page 1 only.
One pager “Global Warming in Polar
Regions”
One pager “CO2 Emissions. What the
Big Countries are Doing”
This
letter and enclosures will be available on my website at www.naturaljointmobility.info/letters
This
will make it much easier to use the references.
Oaklands
New Mill Lane
Eversley
Hants
RG27 0RA
Tel 0118 973 2365
email gormans@waitrose.com
The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP
28th January 2010
Secretary of State
Department of Energy and Climate Change
Dear
Mr Miliband,
Thank
you for replying on the 10th of January in some detail to James Arbuthnot's
letter about the Institution of Mechanical Engineers report that I sent him
before Copenhagen.
I
don't want to belittle the achievements in reducing deforestation or the
challenging, even courageous, target of 30% reduction set by the UK and EC but:
--
the overall calculations do not support your statement that "--we will be
on track to prevent warming of more than 2°C"
The
inaccuracy lies in calculations associated with the developing countries. Although their per capita emissions are very
low (including China's) they are developing fast as everyone is aware. Their emissions increase for the 97 -- 07 decade
was 68% and it is only realistic to assume that this growth will be repeated in
the next decade. This will swamp the
Annex 1(rich developed) countries’ reductions and give an overall 20% increase
in emissions by 2020
Although
the real "promises" are expected by this Sunday 31st January, the
publicised "reductions" available in the press and elsewhere are not
reductions from this figure.
For
instance, China's reported promise of 40-45 percent "carbon intensity
reduction" means in comparison with GDP.
China's GDP increased by 3.5 times in the 97 -- 07 decade so this is a
promise to double emissions in the next decade. This is exactly the increase in the 97 -- 07 decade.
India's
reported 20-25 percent "intensity reduction" would allow emissions to
increase by 2.25 times by 2020 (GDP 97 -- 07 factor 2.9). In fact emissions only increased by 60% from
97 to 2007 so 2.25 (125%) increase allows India another gigaton of emissions in
2020 in comparison with linear extrapolation (not included my calculations
elsewhere.)
Singapore
has done the calculations differently by setting their "Business As
Usual" at 5% a year in comparison with the historical 3.6%. A promised "reduction" of 16%
still leaves room for an increase in rate of increase of emissions. I suspect most developing countries will do
the same as they are permitted to define Business As Usual (BAU) for
themselves.
I
hope that you will insist that the UN and your officials present you with a
list of all country predictions for 2020 in gigatons without any
"concessions" hiding the true numbers. If you do get such a list I'm afraid you will see that we are
miles away from the "peak of emissions before 2020” which might limit
global temperature rise to 2°C.
I
look forward to seeing these figures in the near future.
Yours
sincerely,
John
Gorman M. A. (Cantab.) Mechanical Sciences, Chartered Engineer
Member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Member of the Institution of Engineering and Technology
Enclosure:
Document "Why Copenhagen Failed" with supporting calculations. Also
available at www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm
Copy:
James Arbuthnot MP, Phil Willis MP, Lord Whitty, Jeremy O’Grady (Editor The
Week), Tim Fox ImechE
Global
Warming in Polar Regions
0.7° C worldwide average temperature rise doesn't sound much and
probably isn't affecting most people much at the moment. The temperature rise in the Arctic and
Antarctic is however much greater at 3 or 4°C and these are the areas where all
the dangers lie. This polar temperature rise is four or five times the global
temperature rise so the target of a 2°C global average implies 8 or 10° C in
polar regions. This no longer sounds
"not much".
As well as the sea ice in the Arctic it is the surrounding land areas in
Greenland, Canada, Alaska, Russia and Norway which will be most affected. Like the southern tip of Greenland, these
extend south of the Arctic Circle So if we look at the temperature records from
NASA (1) north of 64° latitude (the Arctic Circle is at 67° latitude) and
compare the first available decade, 1880 to 1889 with the last five years we
get a temperature rise of 2.9°C. This is over four times the global average
rise.
Similarly in the Antarctic it is the area which extends towards or is
north of the Antarctic Circle which is most affected. This is the Antarctic Peninsula where the temperature rise has
been almost 3°C in only the last 50 years (2).
Global warming since 1960 is about 0.6°C (3) so 3°C is five times as
great.
This effect, by which the temperature rise in polar regions is at least
four times the global average, and maybe five times, is referred to as
"Polar Amplification". It is
this effect, plus the obvious changes that will occur in frozen areas with just
a few degrees of temperature rise, which make the Arctic and Antarctic the main
areas of concern with the increased global warming.
(1) NASA Goddard Institute of Space Sciences temperature tabulations are
available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts.txt
(2) British Antarctic Survey briefing note 2009 available at http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/journalists/resources/science/antarctica_and_climate_change_2009.pdf
(3) University of East Anglia, Climate Research Unit graphs for global
warming since 1860 are available at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
John Gorman. Chartered Engineer. Hampshire, UK
Member
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
Member
of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, UK
www.naturaljointmobility.info/globalwarming.htm
CO2 Emissions: What the "Big" Countries Are Doing
After Copenhagen all countries were asked to make the
best commitments for emissions reductions to be achieved by 2020.(1) I have
taken the current emissions for all countries compiled by the USA Environment
Information Administration and used these commitments to predict the world
overall emissions in 2020. My
conclusion is that emissions in 2020 will be 20% higher than now with no peak
or reduction in emissions in sight.(2)
A very small number of countries are responsible for a
very high proportion of overall emissions. Here I have taken as examples just
the eight countries with the highest emissions at the moment. This should demonstrate why no overall
reduction is likely in the near future.
These are in reverse alphabetical order.
USA Reduction by 17% based on
2005 emissions.17% may not sound much but at least it is clear and based on
reduction from a recent level. Canada is offering the same as the USA.
The United Kingdom. Reduction of 20% (same as rest of the EC. Or
30% with conditions) but based on 1990 emissions. Since the UK already claims to have achieved a 20% reduction
since 1990 (3) this isn't offering much in the next decade to 2020.
Russia 15 to 25%
reduction based on 1990. Russian emissions dropped sharply after the break up
of the USSR in 1989. By 40% by 2000.(5) This reduction in comparison with 1990
should therefore be easy to achieve even with continued increase towards 2020.
This promise is also conditional on the inclusion of Russian forests in the
calculation.
India 20 to 25% reduction in "Carbon
Intensity".(5) Carbon intensity
means emissions in comparison with GDP (economic output). In the 10 years from 1996 to 2007 India’s
GDP increased by a factor of 2.9 so, assuming a similar economic future, a
reduction in carbon intensity of 25% would allow emissions to more than double
between 2010 and 2020. Since India’s emissions
only increased by 60% between 1997 to 2007, this leaves room for a much greater
rate of increase of emissions.
Japan 25%
reduction but once again based on 1990. However Japan does not seem to have
reduced its emissions since 1990. In fact they have probably increased making
this 25% difficult to achieve.
Germany. Reduction of 20% (same as rest of the
EC. Or 30% with conditions) but based
on 1990 emissions. Since Germany claims
to have already achieved a 28.5% reduction since 1990 (4) no further reduction
is being promised by 2020.
China. 40 to 45% reduction in "Carbon
Intensity".(5) Carbon intensity
means emissions in comparison with GDP (economic output). In the 10 years from 1996 to 2007 Chinese
GDP increased by a factor of 3.5 so, assuming a similar economic future, a
reduction in carbon intensity of 45% would allow emissions to double between
2010 and 2020 exactly as they did from 1997 to 2007
My
conclusion is that most countries are “sandbagging” or fudging the numbers in
various ways. In particular the use of 1990 as a base makes percentage offers
look much better in most cases or as The Norwegian friends of the Earth put it
“There is currently no limit
for how much of the Kyoto surplus that can be transferred to a new climate
deal. This has the potential to severely weaken a new deal.” Of the eight above, only three seem to be offering
anything that could be described as better than “business as usual”.
One other example will also demonstrate a fudge likely
to be used by many developing but prosperous nations. Singapore
has offered to reduce emissions by 16% in comparison with Business As Usual.
Singapore has defined their BAU as 5% growth in emissions per year and has
offered to reduce this by 16% bringing it to 4.2% per year. However their emissions growth over the last
10 years was 3.6% so that should be easy enough! This is possible because
developing nations can define “business as usual” for themselves.
John Gorman. Chartered
Engineer. Hampshire, UK April 2010
Member
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
Member
of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, UK
www.naturaljointmobility.info/globalwarming.htm
(1) http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php UN official website.
(2) www.naturaljointmobility.info/WhyCopenhagenFailed.htm My analysis of Copenhagen numbers.
(3) http://www.defra.gov.uk/News/2008/080131c.htm Publicity newsletter from UK Dept of
environment.
(4) http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=b58bd48d4f3245eca32edc7c4&id=4295fbad6f&e=c902cf3aad
Quoting German department of Environment
(5) http://unfccc.int/home/items/5265.php
UN list of commitments by developing countries.
(6) http://naturvernforbundet.no/getfile.php/Dokumenter/rapporter/2009/Fact-Sheet-Russia.pdf FoE Norway