This presentation as based on Anderson’s peer reviewed paper Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world, published recently in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.  Here is the abstract for that paper…

‘The Copenhagen Accord reiterates the international community’s commitment to ‘hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius’. Yet its preferred focus on global emission peak dates and longer-term reduction targets, without recourse to cumulative emission budgets, belies seriously the scale and scope of mitigation necessary to meet such a commitment…The analysis suggests that despite high-level statements to the contrary, there is now little to no chance of maintaining the global mean surface temperature at or below 2◦C. Moreover, the impacts associated with 2◦C have been revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2◦C now more appropriately represents the threshold between ‘dangerous’ and ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change.’

Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the School of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester. He has recently finished a two-year position as director of the Tyndall Centre, the UK’s leading academic climate change research organisation, during which time he held a joint post with the University of East Anglia.

David Roberts from the website Grist has written two articles in response to Anderson’s presentation and paper: The brutal logic of climate change and The brutal logic of climate change mitigation, which make for sobering reading.

We am extremely interested in the responses of WATCH supporters and Albury-Wodonga residents to Professor Anderson’s speech and paper, and encourage you to leave your thoughts in the comments box below so we can start a local conversation about the implications of this confronting research.

-

References and Further Information:

Kevin Anderson, Going Beyond Dangerous Climate Change: Exploring the Voice Between Rhetoric and Reality in Reducing Carbon Emissions, London School of Economics – Department of International Development lecture series, 21 October 2011.

Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows, Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, A (2011) 369, 20–44.

David Roberts, The brutal logic of climate change, Grist, 6 December 2011.

David Roberts, The brutal logic of climate change mitigation, Grist, 9 December 2011.

Radio Ecoshock (Canada), Kevin Anderson: The Brutal Logic of Climate Change, 18 January 2012.

You can follow the progress of the COP-17 via the official website.

Here is analysis from several different media outlets and think-tanks on the prospects for the talks…

-

SBS World News Australia

Durban – Quick guide to the climate summit

-

Peter Christoff

The Conversation

And what if nothing happens at Durban?

-

The Climate Institute

Policy Briefing: Durban Climate Summit

-

Giles Parkinson

The Climate Spectator

Durban talks off to a bad start

-

The Guardian

Durban Climate Change Conference 2011 (news portal)

-

Simon Retallack

The Huffington Post

Durban Climate Conference: The Only Way is (Bottom) Up

_________________________________________________________________________

Professor Gawne’s talk entitled, ‘The implications of climate change and its challenges’, will discuss the current conditions of the Murray Darling Basin, and future challenges for the ecosystem and the management of the Basin.

Professor Gawne has been with MDFRC for the past 14 years where he was initially appointed as the Officer in Charge of the Mildura Laboratory.  He was appointed the Director of MDFRC in 2002, and his main research interests involve aquatic ecosystems and fish habitats. MDFRC has been fundamental in supporting sustainable management of the ecology of the Basin.

In appraising this video clip, students were asked to consider the following questions:

• What is the argument of the video?

• What are the broader implications of this message for Australian society?

• On what evidence is it based?

• How credible is Lester Brown and what is his background?

• What is your reaction to the video?

The student responses to this activity can be found at Ben Habib’s blog Our Voice: Politics Albury-Wodonga.

Ellen Sandell will discuss the history of the youth climate movement here and overseas, and how the Australian Youth Climate Coalition went from being a small group of university students to the largest youth-run organisation in the country with over 60,000 members.  Ellen will discuss the challenges young people face in creating change, what the current climate policies of the major parties mean, and why she thinks young people will be the ones to take us to a clean energy future.

As National Director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Ellen Sandell is one of Australia’s leading commentators and campaigners on the issue of climate change.  In 2009 Ellen was listed as one of the top ‘100 influential Melburnians’ of 2009, and was recognised as Melbourne’s leading environmentalist, winning the Melbourne Awards for Individual Contribution to the Environment.

This lecture is one of three in a series of public lectures sponsored by La Trobe University, presented by leading thinkers who represent a range of approaches to issues of sustainability and climate change in different contexts.  This lecture series is also an integral component of the first year undergraduate subject Climate and Society, which is taught across the science, business and social science faculties at La Trobe University.  WATCH’s Ben Habib is a member of the Climate and Society teaching team.

“When Julia Gillard declared six days before the last election that “there will be no carbon tax” our hearts sank. This had been the last chance for urgently needed action to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions.

For years under Howard nothing had been done, even to hold steady our emissions.

In 2007 there was much concern and Australia voted for Kevin Rudd partly for his commitment to act on “the great moral challenge of the generation”.

Sadly indeed this was a challenge he was unable to rise to and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme his government created would actually have assured Australia’s ongoing status as global climate action pariah and shelter for the world’s dig and burn billionaires.

The Greens, who manage to preserve a modicum of independence from the rich and powerful, as well as some disdain for their treatment of our only home, couldn’t vote for the scheme even though they were desperate to “put a price on carbon”.

After political difficulties over the Emissions Trading Scheme, the Greens began advocating a Carbon Tax, ironically an alternative previously favoured by Tony Abbott.

When Julia Gillard had the chance to save the country from the COALition by joining with the Greens, her only option was to adopt this carbon tax, and break her earlier promise.

At least there was now a chance of joining other nations benefiting from expanding renewable energy supplies and cooperative action.”

See original article here on the Border Mail website.

Lord Deben was one of the longest serving Conservative Party politicians in the UK and is now president of an international NGO uniting parliamentarians worldwide to advocate for strong climate ambition.  After 35 years as a Conservative Party MP, John Gummer retired at the 2010 general election.  In 1989, Gummer joined the cabinet under Margaret Thatcher as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, moving to become Secretary of State for the Environment under John Major in 1993.  He remains the longest serving Secretary of State for the Environment the UK has ever had.  In June 2010, following his retirement as an MP, John Gummer was awarded a peerage and the title of Lord Deben.

-

Download Video: Lord Deben – ‘Climate Change Action & Conservative Politics

-

Date:  24th March 2011, 5.30pm
Location: Elisabeth Murdoch Lecture Theatre, Melbourne University.

Early in the letter Heath says:

“Firstly let’s not forget the change from ‘global warming’ to climate change’. Damn, is only they had data to prove this global warming they would not have needed to change slogans.”

When was this change?  The International Panel on Climate Change was created by the UN in 1988.

Comment:  The term ‘climate change’ seems to have been around for some time.

The author continues:

“And let’s not forget the well-documented 800 year global climate cycle – oops that doesn’t fit the approved settled science mantra does it?”

I typed ‘800 year climate cycle’ into Google but failed to find anything.

Comment:  Heath’s 800 year cycle does not appear to be as well documented as claimed.

“Or how about the fact that the globe actually cooled by 0.7 of a degree in the last century.”

This is an ambitious claim.  The graph below is from NASA at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

The graph below comes from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ten-temperature-records-in-a-single-graphic.html  and it represents the average of ten different climate records maintained by different organisations around the world

Figure 1: All Method Temperature Index (AMTI). 1990-2000 Baseline.

Some climate change sceptics will say that the graphs above cannot be relied on because the temperature measurements might be inaccurate.  The graph below suggests that something is melting the ice.

Arctic sea ice volume by month

 The graph  above is from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/19/977559/-eSci:-78-of-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Melted-Since-1979

Comment:  It is difficult to see a reduction in temperature in the past century as claimed by Heath.  

The author then writes:

“How about that volcano in Iceland that spewed out more greenhouse gases in four days that the whole world has tried to negate in five years, and the volcano in the Philippines in 1991, which emitted more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth”

These claims about volcanos sound plausible until they are investigated.  Have a look at this graph from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ which measures the CO2 in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa in Hawaii: You will observe that the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991 (which was the second biggest eruption since 1900) did not even register on the graph.  If the author’s claim was true there would be a huge spike on the graph at 1991.  Further support for this view can be obtained from the US Geological Survey at:  http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php which contains the statement:

“…there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic emissions”

Comment:  Heath’s claims about volcanoes (which he is repeating from material circulating in the blogosphere) are totally without substance.

Heath also says:

“And how about the analysis that assuming the government’s figures are correct the impact on global temperature will be about 1/14,000 of a degree by 2020”. 

Once again this claim is based on some spurious arithmetic circulating in the blogosphere.  The figure of 1/14,000 of a degree is arrived at by assuming:

• that only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made,
• we are trying to reduce emissions by 5%
•  Australia is responsible for 0.045 of the world’s emissions, and
• the temperature rise caused by doubling of CO2 will be 1 degree Celsius

Firstly, is mankind only responsible for 3% of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere?  Consider this graph from  http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif : The graph above shows that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere only began to climb when land clearing and the industrial revolution got under way in 1750. (By the way, this graph is out of date; the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 390 ppm.  Put your finger at 390 on the left hand axis to see what is happening).

The twin graphs below are from http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/climatescience/natural-factors

The twin graphs above show that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has not exceeded 300 ppm for 800 000 years – until now, when it has risen rapidly in the past 100 or so years to reach 390 ppmv.

It is easily proved that the total amount of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels is about twice what is required to cause the recent increase.  About half goes into the atmosphere and the rest into ‘sinks’ such as the ocean and vegetation.  Instead of 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere being due to human intervention, it is 100%

Another quantity used to arrive at the 1/14,000 of a degree above is the 5% reduction in Australia’s emissions that is the target for 2020.

Chapter 2 of the Garnaut Climate Change Review at  http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/chapter2.html shows that without climate mitigation policies Australian emissions will grow 24% between 2012 and 2020, but with them the emissions will hopefully reduce by 5%.   The difference between acting and not acting is thus 29%, not 5%

I don’t know what the actual effect on the temperature would be if Australia managed to reduce its emissions but it is certainly not 1/14,000 of a degree.  However it will still be small, because Australia is not a big emitter.  If Australia takes action on carbon emissions it will send a signal to the world that will encourage other countries to take action.

Comment:  The claim that action by Australia will only reduce the temperature by 1/14,000 of a degree is based on spurious information.

Toward the end of the letter the author quotes Tim Flannery as saying: “if the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as 1000 years because the system is overburdened with CO2”.  Whilst I have not checked the quote, I suspect he got it right.

Heath Craft’s final statement is:  “Of course the truth is out there for those who want to look and see”

Comment:  Very true

” The carbon tax has not yet been passed and already everyone is blaming it for everything.

Most who work in this wealthy country don’t think twice about buying a cup of coffee or a bottle of beer or wine.

And yet the sky is now falling in because the most wealthy of us may be worse off under a carbon tax — David Jones is even blaming the carbon tax on the fact that its profit is down.

We have become so selfish and obsessed by material possessions that we have forgotten that if we do not do something about carbon emissions we may not have a world worth living in.

Whether you live near the sea or inland, we are all feeling the effects of climate change with climate extremes becoming the norm.

While the carbon tax may require tweeking, this government is trying to do something for the good of the country, the planet and the future of our children.

Congratulations to the Jones Street Butchery (The Border Mail, 14 June) which has taken up the challenge and is changing its business to minimise emissions.

I hope the carbon tax will eventually make all businesses — especially those 500 biggest polluters — do the same.

This is the challenge of the 21st century.”

KAREN BOWLEY, Wodonga.

-

Download the original article at the Border Mail website.

Date: Tuesday 31st May, 2011.

Location: The Gallery, Beechworth Secondary College.

Local Sponsors: Beechworth Urban Landcare & Sustainability and Beechworth Secondary College.

-

WATCH member David MacIlwain attended this event and shares his thoughts in this video interview and in his written review below.

-

See David MacIlwain’s review of the event at Our Voice: Politics Albury-Wodonga.

Original posting at the Long Conversations website.

-

Further Information:

The Long Conversations: Climate Knowledge Exchange hopes to achieve a range of outcomes, including:

1. Community outcomes, including discussion of our shared climate future, and greater engagement with climate research and researchers and scientists in general.
2. Outcomes for scientists and academics, including generating greater understanding of your community’s needs and concerns.
3. Creation of a documentary film and photographic record based on the events and content of the project. We aim to document people’s past and present experiences, stories of climate, and vision for the future.
4. Research outcomes including publication in scholarly journals and PhD thesis.

Long Conversations hopes to make leading climate science and climate scientists more accessible, and to engage with the community’s goals and climate knowledge, with the aim of working together to build a shared climate future.