UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond

[AbruptSLR]

It is interesting to note that per the first attached image from the following linked site about a 2013 UN Carbon Gap Analysis, if we had followed the Kyoto Protocol Pledges in 2020 we would be emitting about 55 GtCO2equiv/yr; while per the second image of the UN assessment of the current INDC's in 2020 we will likely be emitting about 55 GtCO2equiv/yr.  So at least we are not moving backwards in our negotiations 

http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2013/11/todays-study-world-must-raise-its.html

[Sigmetnow]

China and France say Paris climate pact should have five-year reviews
François Hollande and Xi Jinping say that any climate change deal agreed in Paris must include future checks on whether countries are cutting emissions.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/02/china-and-france-say-paris-climate-pact-should-have-5-year-reviews

[wili]

Wow, sig, quite a mismatch in tone between that article's title and the actual content you quoted:

"we’re still going to be making the problem considerably worse for the foreseeable future, just not as bad as we could have. So, um, yay!"

I read considerable irony in that last 'yay.'

ASLR, remember that we are talking about a country where about half the people don't believe in evolution and about a quarter think the sun orbits around the earth. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

So getting even a quarter of that population to understand the science enough to be deeply concerned about GW is quite an achievement, I'd say. Especially when one of the two major political parties almost unanimously rejects the science, and many millions are spent every year on disinformation about the subject.

It's still pretty damn depressing, though.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article discusses some of the remaining challenges to achieving a meaningful agreement in Paris:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/11/04/climatechange-summit-politics-idINKCN0ST0XV20151104

Extract: "While companies and citizens find ways to cope with climate change on the ground and push governments to swap fossil fuels for clean energy, officials negotiating a U.N. deal to curb global warming often appear stuck in a time warp, experts say.

…

An analysis of the national climate action plans, released last week by the U.N. climate change secretariat, found that a quarter of the emissions reductions pledged are conditional on receiving financial and technical support to make them happen.
"(Developing nations) are saying 'We'll do something, and if we get more money we will do even more, and so it's about how much money are you going to give us?'," said Huq.

…

Until wealthy governments clarify how they will make good on a promise to mobilise $100 billion a year in climate change funding for vulnerable nations by 2020 - and how it will be scaled up after that - the G77 and China group of developing countries is expected to continue using finance as a bargaining chip at the U.N. talks.
"For Paris, you can almost guarantee that this is going to be an end game," said Athena Ronquillo-Ballesteros, a finance expert with the World Resources Institute.
Wrangling is likely over the definition of which countries should - or could - provide climate finance, and to which vulnerable states.
Even developing nations that are willing to put money on the table don't want to be bound by the same accounting and reporting rules as their richer counterparts, experts noted."

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/opinion/the-tough-realities-of-the-paris-climate-talks.html?_r=0

Extract: "Unconditional national commitments made by countries for the Paris meeting are projected to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions through 2030 by an average of only 3 percent below the business-as-usual average rise of 8 percent."

[AbruptSLR]

Per the linked Joe Romm article from yesterday Christiana Figueres is using too-clever wording which is confusing the media so that many of them do not realize that the current draft INDC's are leading to at least 3.5C warming by 2100 (see attached plot):

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/03/3718146/misleading-un-report-confuses-media-paris-climate-talks/

Extract: "Memo to media: If countries go no further than their current global climate pledges, the earth will warm a total of 3.5°C by 2100.
A very misleading news release from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) — coupled with an opaque UNFCCC report on those pledges, which are called intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) — has, understandably, left the global media thinking the climate talks in Paris get us much closer to 2°C than they actually do.
Indeed, the news release contains this too-cleverly worded paragraph quoting UNFCCC Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary:
“The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs,” said Ms. Figueres.
…
So why does Figueres say the Paris pledges will limit warming to 2.7°C by 2100? In fact, she doesn’t say that. She says they “have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100.” What does that mean?
It means that the overwhelming majority of the pledges end by 2030 — but most of them imply a rate of reduction in CO2 emissions between now and 2030. So, if you assume countries will commit in the future to keep reducing emissions after 2030 at the rate they did before 2030 — and make a bunch of other optimistic assumptions — you can limit warming to 2.7°C in 2100.
…
Note to nerdtastic readers: Yes, the 3.5°C calculation does assume that no unmodeled carbon cycle feedbacks kick in — such as the permafrost melting. I’ll cover that issue in a later post."

[Sigmetnow]

Coalition of 18 States to Move to Defend Carbon-Emissions Rules
Group expected to ask court to intervene in lawsuit challenging greenhouse-gas regulations

WASHINGTON—A group of 18 states is expected to ask a federal court on Wednesday to intervene in support of Obama administration greenhouse-gas regulations that require significant emissions cuts from hundreds of U.S. power plants.

The move will mean most states in the nation are taking sides in a legal battle over a top Environmental Protection Agency initiative on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is leading the coalition seeking to let the EPA’s new rules, called the Clean Power Plan, stand, said they are “a critical step forward in responding to the threat of climate change.” Mr. Schneiderman said the intervening states were committed to joining the EPA in defending the regulations aggressively.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/coalition-of-18-states-to-move-to-defend-carbon-emissions-rules-1446613261

[Sigmetnow]

We're winning the war against coal
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the U.N. secretary general's special envoy for climate change and cities and Michael Brune is executive director of the Sierra Club. The opinions expressed in this commentary are theirs.

According to a study being released Wednesday by the Sierra Club and Bloomberg Philanthropies, 2015 U.S. economy-wide carbon emissions are even lower than they would have been had the [2010 cap-and-trade bill] passed. In fact, the United States can now say it has led the world in reducing carbon pollution over the last decade.

A primary driver is that over the past five years 130 coal-fired power plants have been retired and another 70 are preparing to retire over the next few years. Yes, cleaner energy sources have played an important role in reducing emissions. So did the Obama administration's tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. But the biggest factor, as the new data shows, was the decline in coal use.
...
The progress we have made on phasing out coal will greatly improve the prospects of a global agreement. In the past, political resistance in the United States to climate change legislation hampered our ability to persuade the rest of the world to take action. Countries could say to U.S. negotiators: "You are the wealthiest country in the world. You take action, and then we'll consider it." But in Paris, U.S. negotiators will be able to assert: "We are leading the world in carbon reduction. But we need all countries to be a part of the solution."

Moreover, the phase-out of coal in the United States has only just begun. Our analysis of the new data shows that once all planned and targeted coal plant closings are factored in, the United States will exceed the Obama administration's flagship pledge to cut electric sector carbon emissions -- even if no other actions are taken -- 32% by 2030. In other words, even if Congress does nothing else for the next decade, the work we've all already completed will allow the United States to deliver on its commitments, ensuring we can lead the way on significant international climate action in Paris and beyond.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/03/opinions/bloomberg-brune-coal-climate-change/index.html

[wili]

Thanks for that info on emissions. But I wonder, even as we are closing coal plants and (with the help of many activists) not building as many coal plants as once planned, how much is the US still mining lots of coal that is being sent over seas and burnt there?

It seems a bit...disingenuous to say we are reducing coal emissions if what we are really doing is essentially outsourcing these emissions.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Time magazine article calls climate change the "Mother of all Risks" to National Security, and states that:

"That’s why a bipartisan group of 48 national security and foreign policy leaders—including three former Secretaries of Defense and two former Secretaries of State—recently issued a statement urging the highest levels of American government and business to take domestic and international action to fight climate change."

http://time.com/4101903/climate-change-national-security/

The article also encourages support for the CoP21 process.

[Sigmetnow]

Thanks for that info on emissions. But I wonder, even as we are closing coal plants and (with the help of many activists) not building as many coal plants as once planned, how much is the US still mining lots of coal that is being sent over seas and burnt there?

It seems a bit...disingenuous to say we are reducing coal emissions if what we are really doing is essentially outsourcing these emissions.

So, leading by example, we simply need to get all the other countries to figure they can sell their coal elsewhere while they stop burning coal at home and start cleaning up their energy.  Then soon, no one will want to import any coal (because they aren't using it any more!).  At that point, shutting the coal mines will be a no-brainer, and it won't turn off anyone's lights.  (Except the coal miners, who will need new jobs.). Ta-da! 

[Sigmetnow]

We've already lowered emissions by 5 Gt/yr from IPCC-5 projections, so with 6 Gt from the INDCs, we're about halfway to where we need to be. 

@LiisaMaijaHarju: Current efforts 1/2 of the total required of staying below the 2°C target in 2100. More needed. #EmissionsGap #COP21 https://t.co/7faQLjKr5N

https://twitter.com/liisamaijaharju/status/662564043559948288

UN:  INDCS Signal Unprecedented Momentum for Climate Agreement in Paris, But Achieving 2 Degree Objective Contingent upon Enhanced Ambition in Future Years

INDCs Projected to Reduce Emissions in 2030 by up to 6 Gt But Additional 12 Gt Required to Close Gap

The INDCs represent GHG emission reductions of 4 to 6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (GtCO2e/yr) in 2030 compared to projected emissions under current policy trajectories. 2030 projections based on current policies are themselves 5 GtCO2e per year lower than the estimate of 65 GtCO2e, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report scenarios, which assumed no additional climate policies are put in place after 2010.

http://unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=26854&ArticleID=35542

[wili]

Sig, sorry, I couldn't follow your reply to me.

I get a sense that there was some kind of irony involved, but I don't get from that a clear critique or position.

[Sigmetnow]

Sig, sorry, I couldn't follow your reply to me.

I get a sense that there was some kind of irony involved, but I don't get from that a clear critique or position.

Sorry.  Yes, major irony intended. 
My idea being: let's say all countries decided, like the U.S., to lower their own emissions by closing coal plants, and to sell their excess coal overseas, instead.  But if everyone is closing coal plants, they will no longer need to import coal.  So the overseas market disappears.

Can't burn it at home, no buyers overseas.  End of coal!  [If only things were that easy!  ]


I was thinking of this huge Kentucky-coal-to-India deal that fell through:
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-legislature/2014/03/01/eastern-kentucky-coal-deal-with-india-stalls/5940489/

That was from 2014, and I don't see anything more recent indicating the deal was reactivated.

[wili]

Ah, ok. Thanks. That is an interesting hypothetical. I do think that a responsible country would try to do both, though (not burn and not mine it for others to burn).

As you say, if only...

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Washington Post article indicates that Putin's doubts about climate change has contributed to Russia's relatively weak pledge to CoP21:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/wildfires-burning-up-siberia-surely-it-cant-be-climate-change-putin-says/2015/11/09/da1b82ce-7e53-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html

Extract: "Environmentalists say that attitude is also reflected in Russia’s pledge for December’s global summit, one that received little media coverage at home. In suggesting a reduction in its emissions to “70 to 75 percent” of 1990 levels by 2030, Moscow is actually proposing an increase from 2012 levels. Russian emissions are currently far below the levels produced by obsolescent ex-Soviet smokestack industries in 1990.

Even that offer is hedged. Russia has said reaching the target will require generous accounting for the role Russia’s forests play in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Climate Central article discusses how following the Bonn meeting a few weeks ago, the level of distrust between developed and undeveloped countries has increased to the extent that it could de-rail the CoP21 agreement unless developed countries accept more financial responsibility for the consequences of the GHG that they have already emitted (so we should not count our chickens until they hatch):

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/dispute-threatens-paris-climate-agreement-19666

Extract: "“Developing countries have become more wary of what developed countries are doing,” Singh said. He warned that the loss-and-damage debate could “absolutely” trigger a breakdown of talks in Paris. “The situation is very fragile.”"

[AbruptSLR]

Apparently France and the United States don't even know whether they are negotiating a treaty or not.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/world/europe/any-paris-climate-deal-must-be-legally-binding-french-leader-says.html?_r=0

Extract: "French officials said on Thursday that any agreement at the coming climate conference in Paris would have to be legally binding, expressing alarm at comments by the American secretary of state that suggested the opposite."

[solartim27]

Does COP21 assume that the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are stable?

Thwaites has a new calving, and a big crack advance.  Dates are 11/11 and 10/30.

[Sigmetnow]

Webcast:  24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth, on November 13 and 14, 2015.  Solutions from around the globe; telling the Paris conference that we're watching their efforts.

It's not every day that you can say you were a part of history. Tune in right here on November 13 at 12:00ET when we'll make climate change history.  Join us for 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/24hoursofreality

[AbruptSLR]

Per the linked Climate Central article, the majority of nations at the CoP21 conference are glossing over their responsibilities to foster forests and to slow deforestation:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/paris-climate-pact-could-leave-forests-vulnerable-19683

Extract: "Efforts to foster forests and slow deforestation, which is one of the leading causes of global warming, are largely being glossed over by most nations as they prepare for a historic round of climate negotiations."

[AbruptSLR]

Per the linked article, the Paris Pact may have more twists than a pretzel in order to avoid qualifying as a treaty, while retaining both binding and non-binding provisions


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/climate-countdown-whens-warming-treaty-treaty-35165698


Extract: " It's the elephant in the negotiating room that few officials want to acknowledge: Whatever international deal comes out of Paris climate talks, it likely won't be a treaty that needs ratification by a reluctant Republican U.S. Congress.

That's not the only complication in Paris. China, the U.S. and India don't want the international community dictating their carbon dioxide emissions, but they do want to do something about ever escalating greenhouse gas levels and the rising temperatures they cause. So they have to come up with an agreement that doesn't dictate binding, internationally set targets or require U.S. Senate approval — and yet gets the job done. At least partly.

To do so, they must reach a pact that has as many twists and turns as a pretzel.

...

Experts expect different layers of agreements. The key is that more than 100 nations have already made pledges of what they would do, including the U.S. promise to cut emissions by about 28 percent. In addition, there will likely be an agreement that nations will do what they promise, meet again to ratchet up their emission cuts and set up a monitoring and verification system for those pledges.

Purvis said it probably will hinge on a 1992 international treaty, signed by President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate, that promised to do something about climate change; a decades-old U.S. air pollution law; a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said the air pollution law applies to carbon dioxide; and presidential executive action.

And it involves diplomacy that explains how non-binding international agreements can still be binding domestically, because the president is enforcing the Clean Air Act, Purvis said.

"Getting an international binding agreement is in the cards; what is then binding inside that agreement is what's up for debate," said Jennifer Morgan, global director of climate program for World Resources Institute."

[Sigmetnow]

Webcast:  24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth, on November 13 and 14, 2015.  Solutions from around the globe; telling the Paris conference that we're watching their efforts.

It's not every day that you can say you were a part of history. Tune in right here on November 13 at 12:00ET when we'll make climate change history.  Join us for 24 Hours of Reality and Live Earth.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/24hoursofreality

@ClimateReality: Out of solidarity with the French people and the City of Paris, we have decided to suspend our broadcast (1/2) #24HoursofReality

https://twitter.com/climatereality/status/665312605464952832

@ClimateReality: @patrullaverde We are safe. Out of solidarity w/ the French people we suspended our broadcast. Our thoughts are with all those affected.

https://twitter.com/climatereality/status/665321886377754624 [/quote

[Sigmetnow]

@BenjaminJullien: .@COP21 confirmed despite #ParisAttacks, says @LaurentFabius - COP21 maintenue à Paris malgré les attaques
https://t.co/vDcjlHNhz7
Le Monde

https://twitter.com/benjaminjullien/status/665552045328461824

[Sigmetnow]

Finding the words to convey obligation that are acceptable to various countries but that don't require ratification by the U.S. Senate.

Explainer: The legal form of the Paris climate agreement

It is hard to see a credible deal from Paris emerging without US support. The US Senate would not ratify a treaty, but the US can still sign up to Paris under an “executive agreement” with the sole authority of the president. In terms of international law, this is equivalent to US ratification.

George Washington signed the first such agreement in 1789, and thousands have been signed since, including several international environmental treaties.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-legal-form-of-the-paris-climate-agreement

[Sigmetnow]

Thanks for the Memories, Fossil Fuels, but Now It's Time to Change
By Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christiana-figueres/thanks-for-the-memories-fossil-fuels_b_8556350.html

[Sigmetnow]

Paris climate deal meeting still on as Republican leaders register opposition
Despite Friday’s horrific attacks, Obama and other world leaders will attend talks in France, as Republicans in Congress continue to fight Obama’s climate plan.

Todd Stern, the State Department’s climate change envoy, said the Republican pushback against the Obama agenda and the EPA rules had had no effect on the preparations for the Paris conference. “I don’t see a lot of anxiety about that,” he told a conference call with reporters.

“It is standard operating procedure in the history of environmental regulation in the United States that when the EPA lays down an important regulation, it gets attacked,” Stern said. “It’s never not happened.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/paris-climate-deal-meeting-still-on-despite-attacks-as-republican-leaders-register-opposition

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that when Obama attends CoP21 in Paris, that he will only be able to sign a document that makes legally binding the restrictions on US GHG emission reductions, with no legal commitment to provide funding to the Green Climate Fund, GCF (which apparently requires approval from the Republican controlled Senate).  It is possible that the lack of US legal commitment to contribute to the GCF many make many developing countries unhappy; which could complicate the final agreement:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/18/us-climatechange-summit-congress-idUSKCN0T72LM20151118#5ZljOAIxQDSZsfw0.97

Extract: "U.S. Senate Republicans on Wednesday said Congress would not approve the Obama administration's $500 million request for its first payment into a United Nations climate fund, a move they said would undermine the upcoming climate change summit in Paris.

"This president is going to go (to Paris) with no money," said Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, who chaired a hearing in the Senate environment panel on the international climate negotiations, which begin on Nov. 30.

Capito and other Republican members of the committee said they will ensure any deal the U.S. strikes in Paris will face congressional scrutiny, and warned they will block President Barack Obama's 2016 budget request for the first tranche of the $3 billion pledged last year to the U.N. Green Climate Fund.

"Without Senate approval (of a climate agreement), there will be no money," added Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, acknowledging that guarantees of climate aid to developing countries is "the linchpin" of the Paris climate conference.

Administration officials have said the U.S. contribution to a global climate agreement would not require Senate approval."

[AbruptSLR]

The authors of the linked article about introducing more “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation,” (REDD+) commitments to the CoP21 Pact, end their article with the statement: "It is the lowest cost, most practical and immediately available strategy that can make a real, long-lasting difference to the climate problem. REDD+ is a signal to the world that we are serious about confronting the threat of runaway climate change. Who could oppose it?"

Obviously, these authors are not thinking of the leaders of the US Congress who have cut off any US contributions the UN's Green Climate Fund, which could be used to pay for such a REDD+ program.


http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2015/11/commentary-the-imperative-of-forest-conservation

[Sigmetnow]

Heads of state invited to climate talks in Paris starting on Nov. 30 have confirmed they will attend
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKCN0TB07O20151122

[Sigmetnow]

Dana Nuccitelli:

@dana1981: The GOP Climate Supervillains' Plan to Thwart the Paris Climate Conference will fail  https://t.co/grAGLPcJPR

https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/669176356349964288

The good news for climate hawks is that none of these efforts are likely to work. Foreign governments understand the separation of powers in the U.S., and that President Obama can implement the Clean Power Plan even if Congress disapproves. The pledges that other countries have produced ahead of the Paris talks were made with the knowledge that Republicans oppose climate action. So Obama could succeed in getting a deal in Paris, but only in spite of the GOP’s best efforts to stop him.

https://newrepublic.com/article/124412/gops-plan-thwart-paris-climate-conference

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Climate Central article could be taken as an indication that the developed world is playing games with the developing world regarding pledges of funds to help developing countries to adapt to climate change; and I am sure this issue will be discussed extensively at CoP21:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-100-billion-climate-question-19726

Extract: "What’s a difference in opinion worth?
When it comes to interpreting a climate pledge by richer countries to help poorer ones tackle the problem of climate change, about $60 billion last year.
That’s the difference between the amount of money that developed countries provided to those in earlier stages of development in 2014 to help them deal with global warming — depending on how the figure is calculated.
By one interpretation, $62 billion was provided last year. By another: $0."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Dutch study indicates that while the rate of increase of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions decreased in 2014.  The first two attached associated figures show that these anthropogenic emission rates are higher than ever before, while the third image of the 1-year Keeling Curve through Nov 24 2015, shows that the rate of increase of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are currently running well ahead of the BAU emissions scenario.  Policy makers choose to focus on anthropogenic emissions while downplaying other mechanisms that contribute to high CO₂ (and other GHGs) concentration including: wildfires, forest degradation, permafrost degradation, etc.  Furthermore, if the goal is to limit temperature increase then the record temperature increases for both 2014 and 2015 indicate that focusing only on reducing the rate of increase of CO₂ emissions is not adequate, or acceptable:

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-trends-in-global-co2-emisions_2015-report_01803.pdf

See also:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/25/global-emissions-nearly-stall-after-a-decade-of-growth-report-shows

Extract: "Chinese emissions went up 0.9% in 2014, the same amount as the US, as it used more gas for heating. India’s emissions jumped by 7.8% while the European Union’s emissions dropped by an “unprecedented” 5.4%, but the Indian increase was the largest contributor to global emissions growth in 2014 and effectively cancelled out the EU fall."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked (open access) reference indicates that when including permafrost degradation and other anthropogenic GHG emissions (besides CO₂) that the remaining carbon budget (to stay below a 2C rise) is 810 Pg; however, this estimate ignores:

(a) possible higher values of climate sensitivity;
(b) possible degradation of CO₂ absorption;
(c) possible higher than expected reductions in the rates of aerosol emissions;
(d) the positive feedback associated with dynamic ice sheet mass loss identified by Hansen et al. (2015).

Andrew H MacDougall, Kirsten Zickfeld, Reto Knutti and H Damon Matthews (25 November 2015), "Sensitivity of carbon budgets to permafrost carbon feedbacks and non-CO2 forcings", Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 12


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125003


Abstract: "The near proportionality between cumulative CO2 emissions and change in near surface temperature can be used to define a carbon budget: a finite quantity of carbon that can be burned associated with a chosen 'safe' temperature change threshold. Here we evaluate the sensitivity of this carbon budget to permafrost carbon dynamics and changes in non-CO2 forcings. The carbon budget for 2.0  of warming is reduced from 1320 Pg C when considering only forcing from CO2 to 810 Pg C when considering permafrost carbon feedbacks as well as other anthropogenic contributions to climate change. We also examined net carbon budgets following an overshoot of and return to a warming target. That is, the net cumulative CO2 emissions at the point in time a warming target is restored following artificial removal of CO2 from the atmosphere to cool the climate back to a chosen temperature target. These overshoot net carbon budgets are consistently smaller than the conventional carbon budgets. Overall carbon budgets persist as a robust and simple conceptual framework to relate the principle cause of climate change to the impacts of climate change."

[Sigmetnow]

Can we avoid climate apocalypse?
CNN Opinion invited experts to share their views on what the best solutions are.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/opinions/opinion-roundup-climate-change/index.html

[AbruptSLR]

Here is the Economist's opinion of solutions to climate change apocalypse; however, to me without recommending some kind of corrective measures to our crony capitalistic system (with emphasis on the word: "crony"), all of the Economist's solutions look more like band aids rather than cures:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21679193-global-warming-cannot-be-dealt-using-todays-tools-and-mindsets-so-create-some-new

Extract: "A broad commitment quickly to raise and diversify R&D spending on energy technologies would be more welcome than more or less anything else Paris could offer.

...

 Well-designed carbon prices can boost green power, encourage energy-saving and suppress fossil-fired power much more efficiently than subsidies for renewables.

...

Radical innovation is the key to reducing emissions over the medium and long term, but it will not stop climate change from getting worse in the meantime. This is where the realism comes in: many people will have to adapt to a hotter Earth, and some of them will need help.

...

The final strand of new thinking ought to be research into cooling the Earth artificially.

...

The best way to cope is to keep inventing."

[Sigmetnow]

Christiana Figueres: the woman tasked with saving the world from global warming

“We haven’t questioned whether we’re going to get an agreement [in Paris] for many, many months,” she says. “Now the question is how ambitious is the agreement going to be. At the beginning of this year when I started talking about how we are going to get an agreement, people were quizzical. Now I think everybody has accepted that as a fact: we are going to get an agreement, because there is enough political will, increasing political will. It makes fundamental economic sense. It is in countries’ national interests to really spur up this transformation [to a low-carbon economy].”
...
“The investments that we’re going to make globally over the next five, 10, maximum 15 years, but certainly the ones within the next five years, will determine the quality of life of future generations,” she says, “as simple as that.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/27/christiana-figueres-the-woman-tasked-with-saving-the-world-from-global-warming

[Sigmetnow]

California may be a leader on climate change, but it still has plenty of work to do

Pavley said California has had plenty of opportunity to preview the Paris conference, with a parade of international officials visiting to discuss climate. “Almost never a week goes by that we don’t have people from a foreign country coming to Sacramento on these policies,” she said.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/california-may-be-a-leader-on-climate-change-but-it-still-has-plenty-of-work-to-do/

[Sigmetnow]

Global Climate March: Record Numbers Turn Out for Climate Protests
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/global-climate-march-record-numbers-turn-out-climate-protests-n470836

[Sigmetnow]

AP Interview: UN chief Ban Ki-moon calls for review of climate targets before 2020
http://neurope.eu/wires/ap-interview-un-chief-ban-ki-moon-calls-for-review-of-climate-targets-before-2020/

[Sigmetnow]

@tcktcktck: In Paris a silent #ClimateMarch at Place Republique.. where people could not march they laid their shoes instead https://t.co/CVKtpK7cVR

https://twitter.com/tcktcktck/status/670972650370502657

Empty Shoes Take Place of Marchers at Canceled Paris Climate Rally
http://time.com/4128618/paris-climate-empty-shoes/

[Sigmetnow]

@UNFCCC: Major #ClimateAction announcements are expected at #COP21 - see where to find them https://t.co/Zno12MpwZB https://t.co/0Ah7s3nhGm

https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/670970373194842113 

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/key-cop21-press-events-starting-30-november/

[Sigmetnow]

Op-Ed Bill McKibben: What the Paris conference on climate change can do for planet Earth

All of this means that Paris should be both a scoreboard and a springboard. It will show how far we've come, and it could launch more progress. Two issues in the negotiations will signal how much more. First, how much aid will go to the poorest nations to help them leapfrog the fossil fuel age and deal with the effects of global warming that are now unavoidable. It will take real money — ongoing, steady support — to substitute alternative energy sources for coal in the developing world. Republicans aren't helping here: 11 days ago , they voted down even $500 million in funding from the United States, one of many explicit efforts to torpedo the negotiations.

The second clue is whether the conference will set a clear goal for not just reducing but ending the use of fossil fuels. Will it establish an efficient way to ratchet up emission pledges, as science and technology evolve? Having wasted the last quarter-century, the world can't afford to keep gearing up for once-a-decade grand gatherings; it needs to move smoothly forward into a 100% renewable energy future.

The Paris climate conference represents a possible turning point in the fight between the fossil fuel industry and the rest of us, but the great murky unknown remains: How much of a margin do physics and chemistry allow a warming Earth? The recent news that October was the hottest month ever recorded on our planet, and that the atmosphere's CO2 level has topped 400 parts per million, sobers any optimism.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-paris-un-climate-conference-20151129-story.html

[Sigmetnow]

India unveils global solar alliance of 120 countries at Paris climate summit
Narendra Modi announces a new alliance of nations and industry on large-scale expansion of solar energy use in the tropics and beyond.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/30/india-set-to-unveil-global-solar-alliance-of-120-countries-at-paris-climate-summit

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that the U.S. House will not support President Obama's expenditures for CoP21:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/30/world/europe/ap-climate-countdown-the-latest.html?_r=0

Extract: "U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy says the House will not go along if President Barack Obama tries to commit taxpayer money to support a climate accord reached in Paris.
He says Congress has the authority to decide how to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars, "and I don't think that's the best use of our money."
McCarthy suggested that a must-pass year-end spending bill currently in the works could become the vehicle for language blocking any such expenditure.
The California Republican on Monday also criticized Obama's overall approach at the Paris talks, saying he should be focusing on America's progress in switching to natural gas and thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

[Sigmetnow]

The Fossil of the Day Award is the Best Part of the Paris Climate Summit
Activists name and shame, with humor.

When it comes to saving the planet, public humiliation can be surprisingly effective. Take the satirical Fossil of the Day award, which has a simple premise: Figure out who’s doing the best job at spoiling the Earth’s atmosphere that day, and make a huge deal about it in the most hilarious way possible.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/the_fossil_of_the_day_award_wins_the_paris_climate_summit.html

[Sigmetnow]

Government Leaders Endorse Forests as Key Climate Solution
Announce New Actions, Expanded Partnerships

Paris, 30 November 2015 - Heads of Government from major forest countries and partner countries joined together today to endorse forests as a key climate solution. They recommitted to providing strong, collective and urgent action to promote equitable rural economic development while slowing, halting and reversing deforestation and massively increasing forest restoration.
...
Several leaders announced major new actions to protect and restore forests

Brazil and Norway made a joint announcement to extend their climate and forest partnership until 2020. Brazil has delivered impressive results in reducing Amazon deforestation over 70 percent in the last decade. Both Germany and Norway will continue to support Brazil at scale to further increase ambition on reducing deforestation and forest degradation.

Colombia announced an ambitious partnership , together with Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom, to implement its vision for green growth, with a particular focus on reducing deforestation in the Amazon region.
Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom announced a collective aim to provide $5 billion from 2015 to 2020, or $1 billion per year by 2020, if countries pursue ambitious REDD+ programs, and an intent to significantly increase pay-for-performance finance if countries demonstrate measured, reported and verified emission reductions.

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/nature-s-role/forests-as-key-climate-solution/

[Sigmetnow]

From Bloomberg News, Dec 1:

[Sigmetnow]

Video clip.

@CNN: .@POTUS speaking at #COP21 "I'm convinced we're going to get big things done here" https://t.co/ZL75583gvM  https://t.co/hWnkVs7tlV

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/671680566325022720

[AbruptSLR]

The linked New York Times article discusses the pivotal role that India will play in determining the strength, or weakness, of the pending CoP21 Paris Pact.  The article indicates that as the US Congress has declined to help pay for the transition of developing countries from fossil fuels to green renewables Obama and Hollande have been forced to turn to the private sector (like Bill Gates) to try to bridge the remaining gap between developed and developing countries relative contributions to the CoP21 Paris Pact:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/world/asia/narendra-modi-could-make-or-break-obamas-climate-legacy.html?_r=0

Extract: "India, the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas polluter, has emerged as a pivotal player in shaping the outcome of a deal on which Mr. Obama hopes to build his legacy — or whether a deal emerges at all. So far, Indian negotiators have publicly staked out an uncompromising position.
India embodies a critical tension that will play out in Paris between developed nations like the United States, which are calling for universal emissions cuts, and developing nations like India, which say they deserve to increase fossil fuel use as their economies grow or else receive billions of dollars to make the transition to cleaner energy.
…
India’s annual per capita carbon dioxide emissions are 1.7 tons, compared with 16.6 tons per person in the United States and 7.4 tons per person in China.
During the climate change talks, India is expected to challenge the United States on three counts: to speed up emissions reductions by wealthy countries to compensate for emissions growth in poor countries, to pay more to poor countries to assist in mitigation plans, and to provide clean-energy technology to poor countries.
Ashley Tellis, a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Mr. Obama had “tried hard” to persuade Mr. Modi to shift India off those more hard-line negotiating positions ahead of the climate talks, “but failed.”
…
In a move that appeared explicitly intended to win India’s cooperation in Paris, Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthropist, joined the Obama administration to create what is being called the largest public-private coalition for funding renewable energy. The coalition has the cooperation of 20 countries, including the United States and India, which have pledged to double their funding of renewable energy research, and it will feature a renewable energy research fund paid for by 28 billionaire philanthropists, including two prominent Indian businessmen.
The plans for the fund came together after the French president, François Hollande, who is deeply invested in the success of the Paris talks, invited Mr. Gates and Mr. Modi to meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September. As Mr. Obama has tried to find ways to bring Mr. Modi into a deal, his officials have worked closely with Mr. Gates.
Mr. Hollande in the meantime worked with Mr. Modi on another initiative: a 121-nation solar energy alliance, which Mr. Modi unveiled Monday in the conference’s Indian pavilion.
Some analysts caution against overreacting to India’s negotiating postures — or, for that matter, its projections for expansion in its coal sector, which is dogged by corruption and inefficiency."

[AbruptSLR]

Per the linked Climate Analytics article, it may be difficult to meet many INDC's given the number of planned and existing coal-fired power plants (so don't count your chickens before they are hatched):

http://climateanalytics.org/latest/the-coal-gap---climate-action-tracker

Extract: "If all coal plants in the pipeline were to be built, by 2030, emissions from coal power would be 400% higher than what is consistent with a 2°C pathway, according to a new analysis released by the Climate Action Tracker at the Paris Climate Summit today.
Even with no new construction, in 2030, emissions from coal-fired power generation would still be more than 150% higher than what is consistent with holding warming below 2°C.
Using data from Coal Swarm’s updated Global Coal Plant Tracker, (1) the CAT has calculated the effect on global emissions from coal-fired power, comparing the compatibility of projected coal power production with 2°C and 1.5°C pathways, as well as current policy scenario pathways.
There are 2440 planned coal plants around the world (2), totalling 1428GW, which could emit approximately 16-18 percent of the total allowed emissions in 2030 (under a 2°C-compatible scenario, medium range).
Including existing capacity with a technical lifetime beyond 2030, total emissions from coal-fired power generation could reach 12 GtCO2 in 2030."