Global Warming and The Carbon Logic
No New Oil We Can't Afford to Burn What We've Already Found
"There is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. "
John Browne, Chief Executive of BP, May 19, 1997
"In how far is it sensible to explore for and develop new hydrocarbon reserves given that the atmosphere may not be able to cope with the greenhouse gases that will emanate from the utilisation of the hydrocarbon reserves discovered already?". Undoubtedly, there is a dilemma..."
Heinz Rothermund, Managing Director, Shell EXPRO, May 1997
While the science relating to the rate and extent of global warming is undoubtedly complex, even the oil industry has begun to acknowledge the basic facts. The real extent of our dilemma can be summarised as follows:
Despite this clear imperative, most representatives of the huge global fossil fuel industry continue to deny the facts, and lobby vigorously against those who would deal with the problem seriously.
Looking at the industry's position on global warming today, one is reminded of the early statements of the nuclear industry about the dangers of radioactivity, the early statements of the chemical companies about dangerous chemicals such as DDT, PCBs and dioxin, and of CFC producers about ozone depletion:
"theoretical possibilities and consequences of major accidents in large nuclear power plants", should "not be published in any form at the present time".
Atomic Industrial Forum, 1967
The pseudo-science of the so-called greenhouse 'sceptics' and their 'big lie' tactics cannot deny the consensus of international climate scientists. The uncertainties that do exist are much less than the uncertainties of the economic models that lead industry lobby groups to claim that action on global warming will 'wreck the economy'. It will indeed wreck their businesses if they don't prepare for the urgent measures that must come sooner rather than later to combat global warming.
As the quotes from the senior executives of BP and Shell EXPRO show, some leaders in the fossil fuel industry are beginning to see the writing on the wall. However, key national leaders of the industrialised countries who have caused and continue to cause most of the problem, still appear to be dancing to the tune of the most powerful vested interest in history.
The Clinton administration, far from living up to the meagre commitments made by the Bush Administration at the Earth Summit in 1992, has now stated that the US will increase CO2 emissions by 13-15% by the year 2000. President Clinton is reported to have blocked language from the recent G-7/Summit of the 8 in Denver which would have called for targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Japanese government, host to the 1997 Climate Treaty negotiations in Kyoto in December, have failed to articulate any targets, and Australia and Canada are among the other industrialised nations opposed to any strong international action on this subject.
The European Union is alone in the industrialised world in taking some responsibility by calling for a 15% reduction in C02 emissions by the year 2010. However, while this looks good in comparison, it does not go nearly far enough; and most European countries are not meeting their commitments made in 1992 at Rio.
Ecological Limits
Preventing dangerous climate change will involve limiting both the rate and magnitude of climate changes over the next century to levels that natural and human systems can tolerate without significant damage. The United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG) worked out "targets and indicators" for climate change in 1990. Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also reported these limits.
These "indicators" set limits to rates and total amounts of temperature rise and sea level rise, on the basis of known behaviour of ecosystems. In other words, they defined what level of change nature can tolerate, or "ecological limits".
The Framework Convention on Climate Change signed at Rio in 1992 makes staying within ecological limits a central aim. Its stated objective is: "stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human made] interference with the climate system", and "Such a level should be achieved within a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner".
This shows that we must set limits to both the total amount of change and the rate of change.
The AGGG report (pp 19 - 20) identified the following indicators as necessary to "protect both ecosystems as well as human systems":
The report also said that above 1ºC there may be "rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage". A total 2ºC increase was "viewed as an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly". The report also identified the CO2 [equivalent] concentrations corresponding to these as 330 - 400ppm for 1ºC and 400 - 560ppm for 2ºC.
Greenpeace bases its ecological limits on these findings and the subsequent assessments of knowledge by the IPCC.
Notably:
Greenpeace believes that policy should therefore be set to meet the following limits:
The Carbon Budget
A "carbon budget" - or total allowable loading of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (taking into account the mix of greenhouse gases of which CO2 is the most important) - can be calculated on the basis of such limits and the CO2 concentrations they correspond to, using IPCC scenarios.
What actually happens can only be significantly affected by changes (i.e. major reductions) in emissions of greenhouse gases, both in total (for example taking "long term" as being up to 2100) and in terms of the "pathway" or trajectory that emissions take, e.g. how much is emitted sooner, or later.
In effect, limiting the "long term" temperature rise may mean getting back to 1ºC above pre-industrial levels as it may not be possible to avoid a rise of 1ºC above pre-industrial levels. Because of the lag in effect between temperature rise in the air and the expansion of the sea, it may be possible to avoid breaking the limit for sea level rise if fast enough action is taken.
In order to meet both the total and per decade target limits identified above, a "carbon budget" can be estimated as follows (GtC - gigatonnes = billions of tonnes of carbon in CO2. One GtC = a little more than 4 billion barrels of oil):
Each year the world releases 5-6GtC from fossil fuels and has released 240GtC since industrialisation began around 1860. As the AGGG recognised, it may already be too late to stop a rise of 1ºC within the next 50 years because some of the "committed" temperature rise from existing atmospheric pollution will become fully apparent until well into the next century.
These "carbon budgets" are vastly exceeded by known fossil fuel reserves, and are even exceeded by known oil reserves.
A phase out of fossil fuels therefore logically follows.
An urgent start is required for several reasons:
In addition, climate change may proceed faster as a result of "surprise" positive feedbacks not included in models.
Even if more optimistic scenarios are used, the logic of an immediate start to negotiating a fossil fuel phase out remains.
For example a 1ºC limit with a 230GtC budget under a 3.5ºC climate sensitivity would still be 300GtC if sensitivity was 2.5ºC: still far less than fossil fuel reserves. Similarly, the EU has a target of a 2.0ºC limit to temperature rise and this would imply a carbon budget of 410GtC at 3.5ºC sensitivity and 585GtC at 2.5ºC sensitivity.
Reserves of oil, gas and coal identified as "economically recoverable" are 1053GtC, 820GtC excluding "unconventional" sources such as oil shales. This would, if burnt, lead to a 5.0C rise. In reality, "reserves" are rapidly expanding due to oil, coal and gas exploration. The "resource base" that could be brought into reserves is 4,000GtC.
The IPCC business as usual scenario implies burning 1420GtC, and a consequent 2.4ºC rise by 2100 (2.5ºC sensitivity) and ultimately over 4ºC (5.6ºC with 3.5ºC sensitivity).
The Logical Conclusion
This is the carbon logic. The inescapable conclusion, and Greenpeace's immediate call for action, is:
Greenpeace believes that in order to meet ecological limits safeguarding natural and human systems, a limit in the range 150 - 300GtC should be set for fossil fuel use over the next 100 years. A budget of 225GtC (implying drastic action on deforestation) would, on current trends of usage, mean a complete global phase out of fossil fuels within 30 - 40 years unless fossil fuel emissions are reduced soon.
Achieving a fossil fuel phase out on such a time scale will involve very dramatic reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. As a first step Greenpeace advocates that at the Third Conference of the parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto in December 1997, all industrialised nations be required to reduce CO2 emissions 20% on 1990 levels by 2005.