2 Degrees

2 degrees C. That’s the number. That’s the target that the scientific consensus has settled on for the amount of global warming that we can tolerate. More specifically, we might be able to tolerate more, but if you aim for 2 degrees, there’s a chance you are going to end up with 3 or 4 degrees, and at 3 or 4 degrees, the costs of adaptation really spiral, and more importantly, the probability of a total catastrophe that we would pay truly any price to avoid starts to get pretty meaty. At present, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the lower atmosphere is about 380 parts per million, and it goes up 2 ppm per year. The atmospheric concentration that, at a stable level by mid-century, would lead to something in the range of a 2 degree warming, seems to be about 500-550 ppm. A recent study by IPCC scientists – not the full IPCC, but a large group of them – said that, to be on the right global track by 2020, developed countries have to cut emissions relative to 1990 levels by about 30%, and developing countries have to slow their growth in emissions (not cut in absolute terms, thankfully) by about 15-20%. Blech.

If we can do that, we do it with a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which meets every year at what is called the Conference of the Parties, or COP. This December is COP15, in Copenhagen. It’s the most important COP in a while, for two big reasons. One, the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012, and if there is to be a new deal in place by that time, it must be substantially completed this year. Two, Obama. Kyoto was the first attempt to get something meaningful in place internationally. We get a mulligan. The climate science tells us that we won’t get another one. Fool those 2 degrees once, shame on you; they won’t get fooled again.

President Bush has said that US emission can stop growing by 2020 – which is nothing like the 30% reduction the science seems to say we need. President-Elect Obama (six days and counting; deep down in my bones, I’ve never been so excited for anything before in my entire life) says we can get back to 1990 levels by 2020. That’s much better – and given that we are 15-20% above 1990 levels right now, ambitious – but will the 2 degrees accept the deal? There’s obviously still a gap between that and what the science demands.

How about Europe? The Europeans, to their credit, are damn focused on those 2 degrees. Last month, the European Union passed a big climate package to reach an emissions reduction goal of 20% by 2020. They know the 2 degrees are asking for 30%, but they’re no fools: their measures automatically intensify to reach the goal of 30% by 2020 if other nations agree to a similar commitment.

It’s bold leadership, and it is all that can be asked and more of Europe acting unilaterally. But it’s not quite the path-breaking it is advertised to be. A large percentage – a third to a half – of the 20% reduction in the recent EU legislation can be achieved through offsets, or as we call them in my family, indulgences. Companies and countries that are obligated to reduce their emissions can, instead of abating at home, pay for abatements abroad. From an efficiency standpoint, that’s good – it opens up a global playing field for finding the least-cost reductions.

But the problem is that everyone needs to mitigate. If Europe’s plan to get its 30% reduction relies heavily on cleaning up China and getting the credit, how does China make its own cuts? Furthermore, stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 550 ppm means a developed world reduction by 2050 of as much as 80%. The low-hanging fruit won’t get us very far down that road. Pick it all now, and you’re in just really horrible shape 20 years from now. Reach a little higher up the tree now, though, and you can start to build momentum. Mandating that more reductions from developed countries be achieved at home would drive up the carbon price exactly as high as it needs to be to stimulate the kind of investment that will really change how we power the world. Europe’s new climate package will lead it to make steep cuts in emissions, but because it opens the door to such broad use of offsets, it’s not the strong opening COP15 negotiating position that it at first appears to be. Which means that ain’t no one arguing for a Copenhagen Protocol that really faces up to the scope and scale of the challenge ahead.

That’s the bad news. Tune in tomorrow for the good news. Well, the better news.