UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond

[Sigmetnow]

Brazil and Indonesia submit INDCs.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/09/29/3706261/brazil-indc-pledge/

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article shows that even considering all CoP21 pledges through Sept 30 2015, we could still end-up with a 3.5C temperature increase:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-model-shows-limits-emissions-pledges-19505

Edit: I note that the 3.5C value is a 50% probability value while the video at the linked website gives the confidence range.  Furthermore, I note that this projection assumes an ECS of about 3C; while the effective ECS by the end of this century could be in the 4.5 to 5 C range.

Edit II: Also, before we count our chickens before they hatch, we should remember that many developing countries have tied their pledges to the receipt of Green Climate Fund money; which per the following linked article is far from certain:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/business/getting-to-100-billion-in-climate-change-aid.html?_r=0

Extract: "“Financing is the most challenging aspect of the whole deal,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, told me over the summer. “There is no credible road map to the $100 billion.”
Once a leader in the effort to muster money to help the world’s poor tackle climate change, the United States these days plays a more modest role. Facing complicated budgetary politics, Washington is having a hard time putting its money where its mouth was six years ago."

[Sigmetnow]

Paris tracker: Who has pledged what for 2015 UN climate pact?

GLOBAL EMISSIONS COVERED: 80% (EDGAR, 2010)
NUMBER OF COUNTRIES COVERED: 132

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/03/10/paris-tracker-who-has-pledged-what-for-2015-un-climate-pact/

[Sigmetnow]

India Announces Plan to Lower Rate of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Under growing pressure to join in an international accord to battle climate change, India on Thursday announced its long-term plan to reduce its rate of planet-warming greenhouse gas pollution and to aggressively ramp up its production of solar power, hydropower and wind energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/world/asia/india-announces-plan-to-lower-rate-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

[Sigmetnow]

A Big Boost for the Climate Summit

India’s announcement of a long-term plan to combat greenhouse gas emissions brings on board all the world’s major economies — including big polluters like the United States, China, the European Union and Brazil — with national pledges to address climate change.

India’s pledge is among the least ambitious of the big emitters, but even so, with less than two months to go before a critical United Nations climate conference in Paris, it is an important development. In contrast to past efforts to reduce greenhouse gases by assigning specific emissions levels only to industrialized countries, while giving developing countries like India a pass (an approach that met with stiff resistance in the United States), the Paris conference is asking every country to create its own plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/a-big-boost-for-the-climate-summit.html

[Sigmetnow]

Here's What the G-20 Nations are Pledging on Climate Change
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-04/here-s-what-the-g20-nations-are-pledging-on-climate-change

[Sigmetnow]

What Will A Global Agreement On Climate Change Look Like? The U.N. Just Gave Us A Clue.

While the new draft is sparse on specific details, it does include a commitment by the world’s governments to hold global warming at 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, the threshold that scientists generally agree is required to stave off irreversible consequences of climate change. The new draft also stipulates that nations should readdress their limits on greenhouse gas emissions every five years, a requirement that environmentalists championed at negotiations in Bonn in early September.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/06/3709443/un-climate-agreement-draft/

[AbruptSLR]

While the linked SciAm graphic science article focuses on the fact that a few small fossil fuel rich countries like Qatar (see attached image) have high per capita carbon footprints; what draws my attention from this graph is that with a sufficiently high GNP growth rate India could both meet its CoP21 pledge and still grow its carbon footprint to surpass China's in just a few decades.  Furthermore, the CoP21 pledges for most of Africa and key countries like Brazil are tied to large transfers of wealth from rich to poor countries, which may not occur.  Thus it is not wise to count the CoP21 chickens before they are hatched (just as it was not wise to believe that the Kyoto Protocol would meet its goals just because a few diplomats said that we should [note that since 1998 the world has stayed on a BAU pathway and is still on a BAU pathway today]:

Mark Fischetti (2015), "A Greenhouse Gas Surprise", Scientific American 313, 88, doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1015-88

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-and-the-u-s-are-not-the-biggest-carbon-emitters-on-a-per-person-basis/

Abstract: "Per capita, the world's greatest carbon emitters are small countries."

[wili]

Yes, there are a few oil-rich countries that on the books show higher per-capita carbon footprints. But their contribution to the whole is rather miniscule, so I'm not sure what the purpose of pointing this out is--to make us 'mericans feel better that someone somewhere on the planet is actually managing to be even more criminally profligate than we are?

I also wonder about the numbers. Many of those small countries have quite large numbers of 'guest workers'--essentially wage slaves often working in pretty horrific conditions. Are these folks counted in these stats, I wonder? No time to dig further, but it may be worth looking into.

Thanks as always for this and for all your interesting postings and lists, ASLR!

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article posted on October 2, 2015 by Rolf Schuttenhelm uses MIT projections to illustrate the implications of strict implementation of the CoP21 INDC pledges.  The attached plot shows the optimistic assessment that further emission restriction will occur after CoP21 (see extract); while the end of the extract indicates both (a) that strict global implementation emission restrictions has need been achieved before and may not be achieved when trying to implement CoP21 and (b) the assessment do not account for any natural positive feedback mechanisms that may likely accelerate (like permafrost degradation) once global mean surface temperatures exceed the 1.5C to 2.0C range:


http://www.bitsofscience.org/cop21-paris-emissions-targets-860-ppm-6746/

Extract: "Strict implementation of COP21 Paris emissions targets brings world on path towards 860 ppm CO2eq
That is in line with a 3.5 degrees warming scenario over the course of this century – still excluding albedo and carbon feedbacks. These numbers come from a new pledge calculation performed by Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan School of Management.
Why is the 860 ppm scenario overly pessimistic? It extrapolates countries’ Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) which are for the Paris climate summit mostly focussed on the year 2030 over the rest of the century. Shown below are scenarios with increased levels of ambition beyond 2025/2030. (The 50% chance 2 degree pathway requires urgent increase of emission reductions even before 2025.)
Why is the 860 ppm scenario overly optimistic? It firstly assumes that countries develop effective national climate policies and actually reach their INDC emission goals. This has never before happened on a global scale. Therefore please also always take note of ‘business as usual’ – the scenario we are actually on, which could lead to 1250 ppm CO2eq. Also both the GHG concentration scenario and the linked warming (climate sensitivity) exclude feedbacks, many of which are likely to become significant amplifiers beyond 1.5/2 degrees warming above pre-industrial levels."

[AbruptSLR]

Per the linked MIT article, what India does, or does not, do many override other climate change fighting efforts around:

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/542091/indias-energy-crisis/

Extract: "Can India modernize its manufacturing economy and supply electricity to its growing population without relying heavily on coal—and quite possibly destroying the global climate?
…
Over the next 25 years, “with the most aggressive assumptions in terms of renewables, we could go up to 18 or 20 percent from renewables,” Ramesh told me. “Hydro takes longer—it involves displacement of people and submergence of land, but we could expect that 17 percent contribution to go up to 25 percent. Nuclear is at 3.5 percent right now and, under the most aggressive assumptions, could go up to 5 or 6 percent. So under the best scenario—the most aggressive programs for nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind—bloody coal will still be at 50 percent.” In other words, while low- or zero-carbon sources would make up a greater portion of India’s energy supply, overall carbon emissions would nearly double: from around 2.1 billion tons in 2014 to more than four billion tons by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency."

[Csnavywx]

A nice, level-headed look at CoP21 and CoP15 and the progress made from 2009-2014. It is extensively sourced. A bit old now but still likely relevant.

http://www.e-ir.info/2014/11/05/global-climate-change-policy-will-paris-succeed-where-copenhagen-failed/

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Swedish report indicates that using optimistic assumptions the world is close to (by 2020) locking-in committed GHG emissions that would lead to a 2C temperature rise.  The report optimistically notes that major re-organization of the world's major cities could improve this situation:

http://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2829


See also:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/09/why-earths-future-will-depend-on-how-we-build-our-cities/

Extract: "The 1,000 gigaton number has many implications, but we rarely think about what it means for city planning. A new report, though, finds that if we don’t build cities more wisely, using much greener infrastructure, then they could be a crucial factor that tips the planet over the 1,000 gigaton line — and indeed, that they could play this role in just five years time. By 2020.

The research, by the Stockholm Environment Institute and with funding support from the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group — a consortium of global megacities focused on sustainable development and fighting climate change — is based on the central concept of emissions “lock-in.” We haven’t literally emitted anything close to the remaining 1,000 gigatons yet, but prior research suggests that with all the coal plants and other forms of fossil fuel infrastructure that are already constructed — not to mention all of the buildings and roads and other types of urban and non-urban infrastructure whose very existence implies a future of using lots of energy — about 800 gigatons are already committed to go into the atmosphere.

All of this is simply because when humans build big things, they then overwhelmingly tend use them over their useful lifetime — and that implies a heck of a lot of emissions."

[Sigmetnow]

Opinion: Five Key Takeaways from India’s New Climate Plan
http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/10/opinion-five-key-takeaways-from-indias-new-climate-plan/

[Sigmetnow]

Included: BP, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Total.  Notably missing: Exxon.

Oil and gas CEOs jointly declare action on climate change

Paris, France; October 16, 2015 – The chief executive officers of 10 of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – which together provide almost a fifth of all oil and gas production and supply nearly 10% of the world’s energy – today declared their collective support for an effective climate change agreement to be reached at next month’s 21st session of the United Nations (UN) Conference of Parties to the UN Framework on Climate Change (COP21).

http://www.oilandgasclimateinitiative.com/news/oil-and-gas-ceos-jointly-declare-action-on-climate-change/

[Sigmetnow]

France launches global drive for climate deal
Diplomats mobilised for unprecedented PR push, with Paris summit seen as last chance to reach agreement
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/19/france-launches-global-drive-for-climate-deal

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article states that most African countries find the current draft of the CoP21 agreement to be unacceptable for discussion without immediate amendment:

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/10/18/last-round-of-un-climate-talks-before-paris-summit

[AbruptSLR]

Per the linked article it is not only the African Block that rejected the 20-page draft CoP21 document but the entire G77 + China group.  Per the extract, negotiators will make "surgical insertions" into the draft in a effort to save the final document:

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/19/developing-countries-demand-additions-to-slimmed-down-climate-text/

Extract: "Negotiators will make “surgical insertions” to the text of a global climate deal on Monday, after developing countries rejected a slimmed-down draft.

The G77 + China group, which represents 134 poor and emerging economies, said the 20-page working document produced by UN officials was unbalanced."

[TerryM]

For the first time in many years a global climate summit won't be disrupted by Harper's thugs! I don't know what Trudeau will be able too offer, but Harper's absence will greatly improve the discourse.
I've spent time and money trying to rid the country and the world of Harper's influence. My local MP was the Young Earth chiropractor that the Conservatives appointed as Minister of Science. He's gone too!
My hope is that Trudeau will passionately work to undo the obstructionist, secretive, anti-science, programs that we've been saddled with for almost a decade. Harper has destroyed Canada's manufacturing economy & with the downturn in oil prices we're in for a rough ride. If Trudeau can find a way out, without resorting to expanding the production of the dirty oil that has become our hallmark, he'll deserve the worlds gratitude.
Trudeau fought a clean campaign and won. Let's see if he can keep things running without getting mired in tar sands muck. 
Terry

[ghoti]

Hear! Hear!

[Sigmetnow]

Progress, but....

Europe's greenhouse gas emissions fall to record low
Member states report a 23% drop since 1990, but the pace is slowing and several countries have missed renewable and energy efficiency targets.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/20/europes-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-to-record-low

[jai mitchell]

Congrats Terry!

Harper was (is) a climate criminal it is good you guys kicked him to the curb.

[GeoffBeacon]

Sigmetnow. Progress may be an illusion.

Europe's greenhouse gas emissions fall to record low
Member states report a 23% drop since 1990, but the pace is slowing and several countries have missed renewable and energy efficiency targets.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/20/europes-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-to-record-low

All is not as it seems. For example in the case of the UK see UK’s rising carbon footprint in Greenwash from Stern.

Much to Lord Deben’s credit, it is since he became chairman, that the CCC has actually published a report showing the UK’s carbon footprint has been rising not falling since 1990 as the Department of Energy and Climate Change claims – except for two years after the Lehman Brothers crash. (See Figure 1.8: Greenhouse gas emissions associated with UK consumption – imported and domestic emissions, 1993-2010 in Reducing the UK’s carbon footprint.)

The carbon footprint reported was about 20 tonnes per person per year. This is almost ten times the carbon footprint that the Climate Change Act (2008) mandates.

In December 2012 Professor Sir Bob Watson also spoke on the UK’s rising carbon footprint. (At that time he was Chief Scientific Adviser to Defra.)

Greenwash from Stern: http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/green-wash-from-stern/

Reducing the UK’s carbon footprint: http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Reducing-carbon-footprint-report.pdf

Bob Watson's speech: http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/union-frontiers-of-geophysics-lecture-professor-sir-bob-watson-cmg-frs-chief-scientific-adviser-to-defra/

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that very little progress was achieved in Bonn; which leaves many unresolved issues to be addresses in Paris:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/climatechange-summit-talks-idUSL8N12N3TO20151023

Extract: "Disputes over financing for poor nations hampered negotiations on Friday among almost 200 countries racing against the clock to seal an accord on combating global warming at a U.N. climate summit in Paris in December."

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that no matter what CoP21 does, or doesn't, achieve; it will probably take negative emissions technology to stay below a 2C limit:

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9567863/climate-change-ambitious-cuts

[GeoffBeacon]

ALSR, That Vox article has been worth a look. Thanks.

It is based on Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions by Peters et. al.  I note from their figure1 caption that "For the non-CO2 adjustment [e.g.methane] we show the IPCC WG1 value (used in our analysis)".

I've just skipped through the IPCC WG1 report and I haven't been able to tell whether it supports the argument that we should cut methane emissions quickly (e.g. No Beef) or not bother too much for the time being - because it has a short(ish) lifetime in the atmosphere.

The Vox article says "The US, Europe, and China will use up the world's carbon budget by 2030".

In Now CO2 is short lived, cows really are bad I have written

Scientists Ramanathan and Victor say that reducing emissions of two powerful and fast-acting causes of global warming – methane and soot – will not stop global warming but it could buy time. This might allow a few decades, for the world to put in place more difficult efforts to regulate carbon dioxide and keep Global Temperature Rise below the so-called danger level of 2°C. However, Ray Pierre Humbert thinks this might detract from the task of reducing the emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.

I'm supporting the Ramanathan and Victor camp.

Does the fact that we are running out of carbon budget and (as Kevin Anderson suggests) having to rely on negative-emissions technology (like BECCS?) support the Ramanathan case?

My fear (along with many that post here) is that the climate is in a much worse state than the official line allows.

It would be stupid not to push for a campaign to discourage beef and dairy production and pay farmers not to use paddy fields.

[Sigmetnow]

This latest round of UN climate talks opened with a deadly typhoon bearing down on the Philippines, and closed with Hurricane Patricia, the most powerful tropical cyclone ever measured, barrelling toward Mexico’s Pacific coast. The country’s lead envoy, Roberto Dondisch, struggled to hold back his tears as he pleaded with fellow negotiators to “put aside your differences” and start compromising.

After five days of intense discussions, late nights and some drama, our partners leave Bonn having helped secure a text that is considerably stronger and more fair than what we started with a week ago. Negotiators spent the session adding ambition, clarity and specificity that many felt was lacking. And as a result, governments have a draft text they can take ownership of – crucial for keeping negotiations on track to an agreement.

Mitigation, adaptation and transparency are among the issues where our partners saw progress made. Spin-off groups and informal bridge-building meetings helped consolidate disparate positions, strengthening the options for a Paris agreement that could signal the end of the fossil fuel age and a rapid decarbonisation of the global economy.

Countries failed to find further common ground on loss & damage. Observers suggested the lack of progress could be due to negotiators reaching the end of their mandates, having arrived at a point where the issue is handed up to Ministers to address at a higher level of political engagement.

The most significant remaining divisions seem focused on climate finance. Developing country governments have called for wording that clearly establishes the responsibility of developed countries to achieve the goal of $100 billion in climate finance by 2020, and a plan to continually scale-up after 2020. Developed countries, on the other hand, have proposed finance language scant on details, with less exclusive focus on their responsibilities.

Finance biggest sticking point as UN climate deal takes shape
http://tcktcktck.org/2015/10/daily-tck-finance-biggest-sticking-point-as-un-climate-deal-takes-shape/

[AbruptSLR]

I've just skipped through the IPCC WG1 report and I haven't been able to tell whether it supports the argument that we should cut methane emissions quickly (e.g. No Beef) or not bother too much for the time being - because it has a short(ish) lifetime in the atmosphere.

Geoff,

In my opinion AR5 clearly supports the idea of endeavoring to cut methane emissions as quickly as practicable because over a ten year period methane has a GWP of about 130 times that of carbon dioxide.  Unfortunately, currently atmospheric concentrations of methane are accelerating rather than decelerating.

Best,
ASLR

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that the US Republican Party is committed to reversing Obama's climate change fighting regulations; so if the Republican capture the White House, the US pledges to CoP21 may be up in smoke:


http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/91355/republicans-attack-climate-rules-send-message-un

[Sigmetnow]

SYDNEY: Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Saturday (Oct 24) he would attend December's UN climate conference in Paris, in contrast to expectations that his predecessor would skip the global gathering.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/australian-pm-to-attend/2214990.html

[Sigmetnow]

Are some GOP members starting to see the writing on the wall?

First Republican senator openly voices support for the Clean Power Plan.

As soon as the EPA’s Clean Power Plan hit the Federal Register, the rule was met with a flurry of lawsuits from fossil fuel-producing states, utility groups and the coal industry. Republicans in Congress have pledged to block the rule, and could try to kill the rule through the Congressional Review Act this week.

But in a chorus of Republican opposition, the Obama administration won a new ally over the weekend, when Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) became the first Republican senator to openly voice support for the Clean Power Plan.

“It’s so important that we protect New Hampshire’s beautiful environment for our economy and for our future,” Ayotte said in a statement on Sunday, following an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio in which she endorsed the plan. “After carefully reviewing this plan and talking with members of our business community, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, I have decided to support the Clean Power Plan to address climate change through clean energy solutions that will protect our environment.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/26/3715954/ayotte-gop-support-clean-power-plan/

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article makes it clear that CoP21 is just the tip of the iceberg of what needs to be done:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/27/climatechange-summit-decarbonisation-idUSL8N12R1ES20151027

[Sigmetnow]

Prominent Australians ask world leaders to consider ban on new coalmines
Wallaby David Pocock and author Richard Flanagan among 61 signatories to open letter calling for the future of coal to be on the agenda at Paris climate talks.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/27/prominent-australians-ask-world-leaders-to-consider-ban-on-new-coalmines

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that CoP21 will not include carbon pricing:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/28/us-climatechange-summit-figueres-idUSKCN0SL1J220151028

[Sigmetnow]

How critics plan to torpedo Obama’s prized climate rule

Opponents of President Obama’s climate rule for power plants are uniting behind a legal strategy aimed at blocking the contentious regulations from taking effect.

Since a wave of nearly two-dozen lawsuits hit the Clean Power Plan last week, critics of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule have grown increasingly optimistic that they can convince a federal court to issue a stay.

A win on that front, however temporary, would complicate both the rule’s implementation and the Obama administration’s bid for an international deal at climate talks in Paris later this year.

The rule’s supporters say the litigants have a steep hill to climb in making the case for a stay, projecting confidence that they’ll win the first skirmish of what will likely be a years-long legal battle over Obama’s signature climate policy.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258321-how-critics-plan-to-torpedo-obamas-prized-climate-rule

[Sigmetnow]

U.S. Court won't block climate rule before UN summit

A federal court will not decide on whether to block the Obama administration’s climate rule for power plants until the end of December at the earliest.

That means the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule, President Obama’s biggest effort to fight climate change, will be in place when talks at the United Nations’ global climate pact in Paris wrap on Dec. 11.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/258567-court-wont-block-climate-rule-before-un-talks-end

[AbruptSLR]

We have seen relatively optimistic projections about the INDC cuts by NGO's such as that by Climate Interactive in my Reply #259, indicating relatively sharp reductions in GHG emissions starting almost immediately.  Unfortunately, the UN has today issued a Synthesis Report on the INDCs, showing that GHG emissions will continue to rise through 2030 (indicating the Pollyanna type hopes of Climate Interactive).  See the report at the attached link and the two associated images:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf

[AbruptSLR]

It seems more than a little self-serving to me that the IPCC uses TCR to estimate the projected temperature increase (above pre-industrial) of 2.7C (following the fullest implementation of current INDCs; while if they had used ECS they would have estimated at least a 3.7C temperature increase:

http://mashable.com/2015/10/30/paris-climate-summit-emissions-pledges/#5xrN15Ldj8qT


Extract: "A U.N. report analyzing the 119 separate emissions reduction pledges from 146 countries shows that, if implemented to their fullest extent, the emissions cuts would limit the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius, or about 4.8 degrees Fahrenheit, by 2100, which is only 0.7 degrees Celsius, or 1.26 degrees Fahrenheit above the globally agreed target."

[Sigmetnow]

10 Things We Learned from UN’s Top Climate Official
Christiana Figueres' Reddit "Ask Me Anything"

3)  "The 2 degrees Celsius temperature goal is achievable"

I have been pellucidly clear that the agreement in Paris is not going to reach a 2 degree limit on temperature rise as though that were something we can take off a magical shelf and put on the table. I have been equally clear that getting us on to the 2 degree pathway is entirely possible. This is why the Paris agreement will have two very important components with regard to emission reductions: First, it will harness all the national climate change plans which as a group, if fully implemented, already substantially reduce the business as usual growth in emissions. Second, in recognition that this first set of INDCs (the national climate action plans) is a departure point and not a destination, the Paris agreement will construct a path of ever-increasing emission reductions with periodic checkpoints of progress until we get to the 2 degree pathway.

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/10-messages-from-the-un-s-top-climate-official-reddit-ama/

[AbruptSLR]

10 Things We Learned from UN’s Top Climate Official
Christiana Figueres' Reddit "Ask Me Anything"

3)  "The 2 degrees Celsius temperature goal is achievable"

I have been pellucidly clear that the agreement in Paris is not going to reach a 2 degree limit on temperature rise as though that were something we can take off a magical shelf and put on the table. I have been equally clear that getting us on to the 2 degree pathway is entirely possible. This is why the Paris agreement will have two very important components with regard to emission reductions: First, it will harness all the national climate change plans which as a group, if fully implemented, already substantially reduce the business as usual growth in emissions. Second, in recognition that this first set of INDCs (the national climate action plans) is a departure point and not a destination, the Paris agreement will construct a path of ever-increasing emission reductions with periodic checkpoints of progress until we get to the 2 degree pathway.

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/10-messages-from-the-un-s-top-climate-official-reddit-ama/

While I concur that it is possible to stay below 2C; I do not concur with many of her leaps of faith.  For example, she says that if fully implemented then the INDCs already substantially reduce BAU emissions; while in truth we are currently on a BAU pathway and are likely to remain on this path for sometime to come, so she is engaging in hyperbolae. In other words, I will believe the improvement when I see the improvement.

[Sigmetnow]

While I concur that it is possible to stay below 2C; I do not concur with many of her leaps of faith.  For example, she says that if fully implemented then the INDCs already substantially reduce BAU emissions; while in truth we are currently on a BAU pathway and are likely to remain on this path for sometime to come, so she is engaging in hyperbolae. In other words, I will believe the improvement when I see the improvement.

Yes, the words on the final agreement actually mean very little -- whether it is "enough" or "not enough" is not the point, it is the actions that follow that will mean success or failure, and those actions will, for the most part, be only distantly related to the COP 21 text.

Still, if you didn't like her previous comments, this article will surely rate an eyeroll:   

Paris climate summit: 'The world is ready for change'
By Christiana Figueres
The political will to act on climate has arrived. We will look back at Paris as a turning point of this century towards a brighter future.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/30/paris-climate-summit-the-world-is-ready-for-change

[AbruptSLR]

While I concur that it is possible to stay below 2C; I do not concur with many of her leaps of faith.  For example, she says that if fully implemented then the INDCs already substantially reduce BAU emissions; while in truth we are currently on a BAU pathway and are likely to remain on this path for sometime to come, so she is engaging in hyperbolae. In other words, I will believe the improvement when I see the improvement.

Yes, the words on the final agreement actually mean very little -- whether it is "enough" or "not enough" is not the point, it is the actions that follow that will mean success or failure, and those actions will, for the most part, be only distantly related to the COP 21 text.

Still, if you didn't like her previous comments, this article will surely rate an eyeroll:   

Paris climate summit: 'The world is ready for change'
By Christiana Figueres
The political will to act on climate has arrived. We will look back at Paris as a turning point of this century towards a brighter future.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/30/paris-climate-summit-the-world-is-ready-for-change

While I appreciate Figueres' fighting spirit, her words remind me too much of "Mission Accomplished" and more to the point of the failures of the Kyoto Protocol. 

I have read over and over how unexpected things (China's growth, failure of peak oil to materialize, withdrawal of Canada, Australia, Japan etc.) on the road to the failed Kyoto goals.  For example it is not clear to me that the draft CoP21 adequately addresses the risks: (a) that the development of fossil fuel based industries throughout Africa (ala what China did in recent decades), (b) that the growth of the "middle class" around the world will not demand so many luxuries (air conditioning, refrigeration, meat, etc.) that the INDC's will need to be bent; or (c) that the climate sensitivity parameters assumed in their Carbon Budget are too low and that we will remain on a BAU temperature path due to increased acceleration of natural positive feedbacks even if anthropogenic forcing is throttled back after it is already too late.

That said, I do not mean to belittle the serious efforts that are being made in the fight against climate change.

[Sigmetnow]

Cheerleaders.  Scorekeepers.  Need them both.
Also, a team.  A bigger team, and fewer spectators! 

[jai mitchell]

I do not concur that it is possible to stay below 2C.  Current GHG abundance levels and the recently rapid rise in the rate of ocean heat accumulation shows that, with the aggressive reduction in Anthropogenic Aerosols due to these climate agreements we will move quickly above the current 1.056C average above preindustrial temps to 2C, possibly as early as 2035.

[AbruptSLR]

While the linked Huffington Post article about CoP21 is about a week old, it still makes some interesting points; which remind me of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times".
The article makes it clear that just to meet the somewhat weak INDCs, the private sector will need to make tens of trillions of dollars of investments to re-tool the global economy; which will soon utilize all of the expected bond capacity in the international market place.  I note that this investment will have a significant carbon footprint for the next few decades; at just the same time as the private sector is already planning on making major investments in robotics, and smart infrastructure (which will also have an additional significant carbon footprint).  Also, I note that photovoltaics are highly dependent on rare earths that will soon come into short supply; which will cause another round of re-investment in capital for other types of renewable energy sources (which will also have a carbon footprint).  Assuming that the world economy will re-invent itself in a few short decades without a lot of inefficiencies and increased levels of risk, seems short sighted.  Which is not to say that we should not try, but is to say that we should be prepared to deal with some major fallout during the next several decades:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/assaad-w-razzouk/the-paris-climate-talks-c_b_8358928.html

Extract: "The INDCs are the driving force of COP21 and will become the development pathway for all countries. Weak and general at first, they will become stronger and more detailed over time.
Two major consequences will follow.
First, multi-trillion dollar investment opportunities for the private sector will be clearly delineated, while others, far from where the country is heading, should be avoided.
…
Second, the breadth of these INDCs means that within a few years, all finance will be climate finance; and all bonds will be green bonds.
…
The business and the financial world will be markedly absent from Paris, but should closely monitor the evolution of INDCs and of "loss and damage" in Paris. These could upend how they currently do business."

PS: In response to jai's post, I concur that using the term "possible" is not a good idea; as many people assume that this means that I think we will in fact stay below the 2C goal; which I do not believe to be the case.  My point in using the term "possible" is to emphasis that anthropogenic global warming is pure and simply a result of human mindset; unfortunately, I do not believe that people will can their way of thinking fast enough to prevent very dire consequences to our socio-economic-environmental systems, possibly as soon as 2035, but certainly by 2050.

PPS: I neglected to mention that all of the "loss & damage" from climate change will also require still more capital investment (which will also have some level of carbon footprint).

[wili]

In case anyone else has trouble with acronyms: Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)

all of the "loss & damage" from climate change will also require still more capital investment (which will also have some level of carbon footprint)

Another generally overlooked human-mediated feedback loop.

I think we've already seen that in clean up and rebuilding (often in the same stupid places) after things like Katrina and Sandy, to name only two stateside disasters.

If we ever do really wake up to the threats slr pose to our coastal infrastructure, there will doubtless be many super-uber-mega-projects to try to counter it, which themselves will also be part of this sort of feedback. (Think sea walls around NYC, or a giant damn across the straits of Gibraltar...)

[AbruptSLR]

Just as the IPCC is proposing to leverage capitalism to maximize the CoP21 INDCs; Bill Gates, is warning that it would be better to use a quasi-socialistic approach:

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/29/bill_gates_the_private_sector_is_completely_inept_partner/

Extract: "Bill Gates, still the world’s richest man after all these years, does not have a lot of faith in his fellow billionaires or even capitalism when it comes to doing the right thing. It turns out he thinks the private sector is too selfish and inept to tackle the dire climate change situation, and relying on it would be courting disaster. Better to take a quasi socialist approach and remove the profit motive altogether from this important work."

[Sigmetnow]

61 Percent of Public Supports Clean Power Plan in States Suing to Stop It
Twenty-six attorneys general have sued to stop the EPA rule, despite its support from most voters and even some governors.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/11/02/61-percent-of-public-supports-clean-power-plan-in-states-suing-to-stop-it

[AbruptSLR]

The linked Huffington Post article indicates that while most American currently acknowledge climate change; relatively few of them are very worried about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/americans-largely-unconcerned-about-climate-change-survey-finds_563906d8e4b079a43c04de2d

Extract: "Most Americans know the climate is changing, but they say they are just not that worried about it, according to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. And that is keeping the American public from demanding and getting the changes that are necessary to prevent global warming from reaching a crisis, according to climate and social scientists.
As top-level international negotiations to try to limit greenhouse gas emissions start later this month in Paris, the AP-NORC poll taken in mid-October shows about two out of three Americans accept global warming and the vast majority of those say human activities are at least part of the cause.
However, fewer than one in four Americans are extremely or very worried about it, according the poll of 1,058 people. About one out of three Americans are moderately worried and the highest percentage of those polled - 38 percent - were not too worried or not at all worried."

[Sigmetnow]

Why We Can Be Hopeful About Climate Change
This should be the year we turn to preparing for the future.
  By Eric Holthaus

The U.N.’s own assessment of all the pledges, released last week, framed the remaining challenge most accurately: We’re definitely seeing a slow down of emissions growth, but no peak yet. That means 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!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/paris_pledges_will_avoid_worst_case_climate_change_scenario.1.html