“The future will be radically different from the present. It will either be radically different because we have significantly – we’ve grasped the nettle and we’d be prepared to make the sorts of changes that would initially be quite challenging socially and politically, to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
Or…
A little bit further down the line, we will be faced with huge social and political repercussions because of a very significantly changing climate.“
-Dr. Kevin Anderson
That is Dr. Kevin Anderson. As one of the world’s top climate scientists, he says the hard facts about climate change are not getting out, and never made it to the Paris climate talks. It’s a shocking, revealing interview. Then we travel to Australia, where host Vivien Langford of the Beyond Zero Emissions show talks in studio with David Spratt, author of Code Red, plus a union icon and psychologist – on the eve of the Paris talks. More frank talk.
I’m Alex Smith. Buckle up, this is Radio Ecoshock.
Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock show in CD Quality (56 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB)
Or listen on Soundcloud right now!
KEVIN ANDERSON: CLIMATE SCIENCE M.I.A.
During the Paris climate talks, one leading scientist says the fundamentals of the whole process is “wildly optimistic”. It starts with climate models that assume too much, spills into unreal scientific advice, and ends with rosy media reports saying we can keep on growing without wrecking the climate. Our Western lifestyles won’t be greatly inconvenienced, they say.
The odd-man out at the party is Kevin Anderson. He’s a well-known Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the University of Manchester. Anderson is also the Deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, a leading scientific institute not only in Britain, but in the world.
Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock interview with Kevin Anderson in CD Quality or Lo-Fi
My previous show on Kevin Anderson, July 22nd 2015, “What they won’t tell you about the climate catastrophe” is blogged with links here.
But I call Kevin this time about a new article he published in the journal Nature Geoscience. The title is “Duality in Climate Science“. The paper is available here, in free full-text. A useful article form phys.org is here.
Here’s the link to a great piece in Skeptical Science on Kevin’s new paper.
THE FAMOUS PICKETTY WEIGHS IN ON WHO THE BIG EMITTERS ARE
During our interview, Kevin mentioned a new paper by Chancel and Picketty, on how a few million top consumers are responsible for the majority of climate change emissions. Find that here.
The full title and citation on the Chancel/Picketty climate paper is:
Carbon and inequality: from Kyoto to Paris
Trends in the global inequality of carbon emissions (1998-2013) & prospects for an equitable adaptation fund
Lucas Chancel, Iddri & Paris School of Economics
Thomas Piketty, Paris School of Economics
3rd, November 2015.
PARDON MY RANT
After reports from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the assembled government leaders gather in Paris. Their stated goal is to keep global mean temperature rise below 2 degrees Centigrade, from pre-industrial levels. Dr. James Hansen says it’s “crazy” to say 2 degrees C would be safe.
Kevin Anderson agrees with Hanson. As I wrote in my blog about Anderson’s 2012 speech:
“In fact, says Anderson, we are almost guaranteed to reach 4 degrees of warming, as early as 2050, and may soar far beyond that – beyond the point which agriculture, the ecosystem, and industrial civilization can survive.“
Here is another thing that drives me crazy, and Anderson describes it in this new paper. The question set to be answered is: “what do we need to do to have a 66% chance or better of staying below 2 degrees C”. Imagine we are playing Russian Roulette. We have a pistol with three chambers, one of which contains a bullet. The stakes are not just our own lives, but those of all our descendants, and possibly most life on Earth. Who in their right mind would pull the trigger with only a 66% chance of surviving?
Is it unreasonable for us to expect a GUARANTEE the climate will not be wrecked, rather than the kind of casino odds being offered by international negotiations?
It’s no surprise that major media provides a version of reality that allows advertisers, stockholders, and the public, to continue playing the fossil fuel game as long as possible. The surprise is that scientists who know better, do not work harder to correct obvious “mistakes” and outright fairy-tales about our predicament. I ask Anderson: Why aren’t more scientists speaking up?
I say the Paris talks are already set up for failure, depending on they do on voluntary goals, set a long time into the future, and without even the courage to talk about the remaining carbon budget. By the way, another blog, at theclimatecolation.org, uses Kevin’s paper to calculate the carbon budget would be all used up by 2034. Would you agree?
So I ask Kevin if the whole Conference of the Parties (COP) approach should be abandoned, having failed for decades to even reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
His answer surprised me. The COP meetings should go on, he says, but they should not be the only game in town, with such huge stakes looming over us. Anderson has said for some time that the rest of the world, all the willing, should forget about trying to get the United States onboard. The retro anti-science crowd in Congress is never going to approve the moves that are needed.
The European Union should go it alone, with whatever trading partners it can bring along. If we say the Europe is involved in about one third of all world trade, if the EU insisted on climate-safe products and production, perhaps with side deals with countries like China, the United States would have to come on board, to protect trade. We can’t wait for the last countries to join the movement to save the world climate.
There has never been a greater tragedy than today. We know, based on hard science, what is coming. We can see it coming. Everyone keeps on dancing, with the drugs of consumption, the many energy slaves at our command, as though this party can keep going forever. For the dinosaurs, there was a time of tragedy, and even that time lasted some millions of years. Only the birds survived. Our time of tragedy looks to be very short, a few hundred years at best, just a few generations.
The greatest tragedy is that some of us can see what must be done. We cannot communicate that into action, so deluded are the other players. Even when they know, they will not act to end the addiction. We need greatness from our artists – poets, musicians, authors, film-makers, to express this tragic dream, before it hardens into unstoppable reality (if it has not already).
Kevin says a lot, a lot better than I do. Be sure and listen to this key interview.
HOT CLIMATE RADIO FROM AUSTRALIA
I know cutting edge radio when I hear it. I play you part of the Beyond Zero Emissions radio show, on 3CR Community radio in Melbourne Australia. 3CR also broadcasts Radio Ecoshock, as one of our international partners.
Following discussion of the climate action march in Melbourne November 27th, host Vivien Langford starts in-depth with David Spratt, co-author of the book Climate Code Red, and host of the influential climate code red blog. Then you’ll hear from Dr Colin Long, leader in the National Tertiary Education Union, who champions workers in the transition away from carbon. Vivien’s third guest is psychologist Lyn Bender, from the group Psychology for a Safe Climate.
The groups starts off talking about the climate movement in Melbourne, which I find exciting.. By the way, that was Australia’s biggest climate action ever, with 60,000 people showing up in the streets of Melbourne! But trust me, it’s not long before these three guests dive into issues that affect us all.
You can listen to this show, and all the programs from Beyond Zero Emissions, here.
Radio host Vivien Langford.
Or to get a taste, you can download this 26 minute segment, as broadcast on Radio Ecoshock, in CD Quality or Lo-Fi
I’m Alex Smith. Please help support this radio show. And as always, thank you for listening, and caring about your world.
CLIMATE MUSIC:
I finish off the show with a quick bit of music from the group Eclectic Sparks, in Yorkshire UK, as played at the Yorkshire Climate Festival 2015. “Whatya gonna do with your CO2”.. Find that on You tube here. Thanks for the tip Dana!
Excellent show Alex, congratulations, now for the bad stuff.
Climate Wet Dreams In The City Of Love
In 2007, the IPCC told us emissions must peak by 2015 to stay within 2 °C of warming. But, after several years of doing sweet fuck all, policymakers couldn't admit we did nothing. So…
In 2014, the IPCC told us emissions must peak by 2030 to stay within 2 °C of warming. This time they were smart enough to double the lead-up time and include the BECCS fantasy, that's how e-CON-omists get the big bucks. But, you know what? Some sexual fantasies get real tired, real fast.
If we can't even be honest about it, how can we solve it?
Answer: We can't be honest because we know it's insoluble.
That's why all climate documentaries end in a musical crescendo of auditory hope porn. For those of you who like hardcore bondage videos, skip to the video links.
Climatic Emissions Porn
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33874-techno-optimism-and-bad-science-in-paris-the-problem-with-carbon-capture-and-storage
Anatomy Of Climatic Orgasms
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/02/climate-technofix-weaving-carbon-into-gold-and-other-myths-of-negative-emissions/
Kevin Anderson rips the IPCC a new one.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/18/how-scientific-miscalculations-could-crash-the-climate
Climate Bondage Vids And 50 Shades Of Bullshit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8akSfOIsU2Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF1zNpzf8RM
Softcore Porn
For those who still believe in rainbow ponies and unicorns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCWKy9zN90A
Six Savage Strokes And It's All Over
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/3txy84/the_green_energy_trap/
OMG! I'm slightly bored…
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/3vcfoo/james_hansen_kevin_anderson_doubletap_cop21/
A biologist called Janine Benyus set up the Biomimicry Institute. There is a promotional video here: http://climatecrocks.com/2015/11/27/the-weekend-wonk-janine-benyus-and-biomimicry/
Carbon negative cement is mentioned. From Kevin Anderson's talk, sounds like this technology – if it could be rolled out en mass – would help give us a larger carbon budget.
Kevin Anderson Duality Paper Reference Investigation 1-2 (http://kevinanderson.info/blog/duality-in-climate-science/)
Reference 1 link broken. I'm unable to access FT newspaper. However, the 0.06%point reduction in annualised growth rate probably refers to the graph found at Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (AR5) p24 Summary for Policy Makers, Global mitigation costs and consumption growth in baseline scenarios (SPM.13) PDF found here at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
The 0.06%point reduction occurs for the 500 and 450 CO2e scenarios. The the list of scenarios considered by AR5 can be found at Table SPM.1 p22 of AR5. The 450 scenario is likely to keep warming under 2°C. The 500 scenario is between more likely than not and about as likely as not. Note that both scenarios assume an immediate adoption of a single price for carbon (see SPM.13 caption, "Cost-effective scenarios assume immediate mitigation in all countries and a single global carbon price"). This single carbon price is not presently implemented. Another bias?
Reference 2 is broken. A link to the article can be found here:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/rapid-carbon-emission-cuts-severe-impact-climate-change-ipcc-report
The quote from the article referenced in Kevin's paper is, "But it also found that delaying significant emission cuts to 2030 puts up the cost of reducing carbon dioxide by almost 50%". The figure can be found in Table SPM.2 p25 of AR5. The medium cost of mitigation cost increases due to delayed additional mitigation until 2030 is 44% with a 2-78% range when considering the 16th to 84th percentile range of scenarios.
Kevin Anderson Reference Investigation R3
Reference 3 is accessible. However I think the direct quote reads differently than, 'concluded that staying below 2°C would require “a fairly strong level of action on greenhouse gas emissions”'. Kevin refers to the passage found at http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-little-time-left-to-act-on-climate-change-20141103-11g2er#ixzz3tRYulGOu
"Elsewhere in the IPCC report, experts predict that even with a fairly strong level of action on greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of decades, by the end of the century the world will be about 2 degrees warmer."
In the context of the IPCC report, the only scenario likely to deliver 'only' 2°C warming is scenario 450 in Table SPM.1. What is the share of low and zero carbon energy needed to achieve this? Check out 'Share of low and zero carbon energy' in SPM.12. Dark green for the left box plots assume immediate mitigation and light green implies mitigation after 2030. Note by 2100 the medium percentage share is somewhere between 87-95%. Now here comes the massive cavet. These graphs are for the likely as not scenario for 500 (Overshoot of 530 ppm CO2-eq) with the default technology assumption. So what does that mean for the likely scenario? Probably over 100% of low and zero carbon energy. Therefore carbon negative technology has to be assumed to have a likely chance of keeping warming at 2°C according to IPCC calculations. I believe this is one if the biases Kevin is talking about. Ideally we should a graph for the 450 scenario for SPM.12 to make relevant policy decisions.
Taking this data into account perhaps Sydney Morning Herald should've read: 'Elsewhere in the IPCC report, experts predict that economies by the end of the century would only have a 50/50 chance of keeping warming at 2°C with nearly all energy generation from low and zero carbon sources. Furthermore, a likely chance of keeping warming at 2°C would require carbon negative energy sources. Both scenarios assume an immediate adoption of a single global carbon price.'
What scenario are we currently in? See AR5 footnote 15 p20 for some context, "the CO2-eq concentration in 2011 is estimated to be 430 ppm (uncertainty range 340 to 520 ppm)". All the IPCC data considered above is from 2010. What was the data for 2014 the year AR5 was published? 481 ppm according to NOAA's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index found at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/. Therefore according to Table SPM.1 we're already likely to get 3-4°C warming.
Typo: Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) article is reference 5.
Reference 3 article from Fox News is broken. Accessible link found at: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/11/02/un-climate-panel-says-emissions-need-to-drop-to-zero-this-century-to-keep/
Relavent quote: "Climate change is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the U.N.'s panel on climate science said Sunday."
Reference 4 from Hindustan Times article is: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/un-climate-report-offers-stark-warnings-hope/story-8zYgFu60iMqkTNC1G9k2BK.html
Relavent quote: "Climate change is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the UN's panel on climate science said Sunday."
Same prose in both articles. The bias being as detailed above in the context of the SMH article: in order to achieve a likely chance of just 2°C warming, annual greenhouse gas emissions will have be negative by the end of the century (with CO2 equivalents being at 450 ppm compared to 481 ppm now); energy generation to be 100% from low and zero carbon energy sources) at the end of the century; and an immediate adoption of a global carbon price.
Just now working this far back — EXCELLENT show!!
I live just up the road from Trenberth, who works on the IPCC. I could not agree more w/ Kevin Anderson, and David Wasdell in a way, about how the scientist have “soft peddled” the actual situation wrt the results of all the individual papers published in the last N years, let alone that put together into a coherent bigger picture — that’s part of Wasdell’s brilliance.
To be honest, I wonder how Trenberth sleeps @ night. I mean, no offense, and I’m sure he is a really decent guy, but, dude, when are going pull the F’n Fire Alarm? and tell the politicians we have!!
it is far, Far, FAR past the time to limit the FULL truth being told!!
(to Wasdell’s point out the IPCC omitting multiple levels of models that are material to the conclusion)
But, to be fair, they have not been supported by a kind of ecology and green movement that seems to be as robust is necessary to deal with the whole truth. Maybe 350.org and a few others help, but who is taking all the science, and it’s full technical implications, and the likely economic and political and societal consequences, and then getting in the face of the industries, the deniers, the politicians? Some group that well say: that’s not true (to the denier BS,) and you know it! That is courageously frank, in the face of power. Who??!!??
Your climb down vs. fall off (the cliff of climate catastrophe) is, Alex, **EXACTLY** the deal!!! :-))