ddpp

The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) issued its final report in preparation for this week's climate summit at the UN:

http://unsdsn.org/what-we-do/deep-decarbonization-pathways/

Here is the Executive Summary:

http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DDPP_2014_report_executive_summary_digit.pdf

deep decarbonization

These are the eight goals of the 'Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project' (DDPP), a consortium of universities and think tanks in 13 major countries that is coming up with specific proposals for deep cuts in carbon emissions in preparation for the Paris climate conference next year:

************************************************

Fossil fuels:
•Moratorium on development of new coal deposits and non-conventional fossil fuel reserves (e.g. oil sands, Arctic oil, deep-ocean oil, or methane hydrates) after 2015.
•Moratoriums to be lifted only in the event of possible large scale diffusion of point source CCS (for coal) or air CCS (for oil)

Power:

•No new coal-fired power plants licensed for construction after 2018 except with CCS (2025 for LICs)
•All existing coal-fired power plants retrofitted with CCS, or closed, by 2030 (2040 in LICs)
•Carbon intensity of power generation <100 g/kWh by 2050

Transport:
•All new personal vehicles sold after 2030 with zero tailpipe emissions, e.g. electric or fuel-cell power (2035 for LICs), and all commercial vehicles with electric, natural-gas power, or sustainable, low-CO2 biofuels

Housing:
•All new residential and commercial buildings heated by electricity or co-generation after 2025 (2035 for LICs)

Energy efficiency:
•Global standards on CO2 intensities for appliances and industrial processes by 2025 (2035 in LICs)

************************************************

My initial feeling about this, which lasted for several days, was that this was all basically impossible. It has occurred to me now, though, that what I meant was that this was POLITICALLY impossible, particularly in this country at this time. Just to take the first point: Put a moratorium on all new coal mining and 'non-conventional' (including fracking) fossil-fuel extraction BY THE END OF NEXT YEAR??!?! Im-bleeping-possible.

It's occurring to me now, though, that there's an interplay here between what's politically possible and what's technologically feasible. On the last point, for example, engergy efficiency, Jeffrey Sachs insists elsewhere that the technology is there to increase energy efficiency by a factor of five right now.

I won't attempt to break these claims down here, but just to say that what's politically possible will have a lot to do with what's technologically and economically feasible.

global carbon budget

This is from last fall, but it makes the central point about the importance of a 'global carbon budget.'  The thing to keep in mind is that (for all practical purposes) the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is cumulative.  It is this total amount, not the rate of emission, that determines the effect on the climate.  If we want to keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees C, the total amount of gases cannot exceed a certain limit.  This is the basis for the IPCC saying that 75-80% of fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground, forever.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc-climate-change-report-contains-grave-carbon-budget-message-16569

terrifying math

One of my ur-texts on climate change is Bill McKibben's article, 'Global Warming's Terrifying New Math,' from the August 2, 2012, issue of 'Rolling Stone':

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719?print=true

Basically, McKibben says that if we want to stay within a 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature (a questionable goal in itself), we can burn no more than about 565 gigatons of fossil fuels.  However, the reserves of various fossil fuel companies are about 2800 gigatons.  To quote the article:

'Which is exactly why this new number, 2,795 gigatons, is such a big deal. Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit – equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit – the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That's the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour.'