Doc for Elsie & Heather Luna on whether or not Shell can justify present and near future

emissions

By Julia Steinberger, University of Leeds Nov 22 2018

1. General argument: the question to hand is what level of future emissions is compatible with
remaining within 1.5 degree temperature rise.
1.1. Reminder: the Paris agreement calls for “limiting global warming to well below 2C and
pursuing efforts in line with 1.5C” See text from Paris agreement here, page 29.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/02/20160215%2006-03%20PM/Ch_XXVII-7-d.pdf
1.2. Holding to 1.5 degrees as a target, rather than 2 degrees, is the message of the latest IPCC
“special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels..”
(known as SR15 for short), which highlights the massive difference between achieving 1.5
degrees and 2 degrees of impact, including extinction of species, sea level rise, hundreds of
millions condemned to poverty, crop losses, heat waves, floods and so on.
1.3. Consequence of IPCC SR15: anyone, or any company, calling for a 2 degree target is
deliberately committing to an immense level of human and natural harm compared to 1.5
degrees.

2. The relevant section of the SR15 summary for Policy Makers is paragraph C1.3, below. It says
that the 66% confidence level remaining CO2 emission budget is either 420 GtCO2 or 570 CtCO2
depending on which baseline is used for the temperature. 66% means there would still be a 1/3
chance of overshooting 1.5 degrees.

2.1. This budget is larger than in previous IPCC reports for reasons described here
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-ipcc-1-5c-report-expanded-the-carbon-
budget (has to do with baselines)
2.2. But this does not mean we necessarily have more time to act. The uncertainties listed in
paragraph C1.3 are huge: 400 + 250 + 250 = 900 GtCO2 uncertainty, plus a potential extra
100 GtCO2 from permafrost & wetland methane releases.

1
 2.3. So we have an emissions 420 or 570 +/- 900 GtCO2 – possibly 100 GtCO2 from methane:
that means we might very well ALREADY have blown the carbon budget. No one can say for
sure that any future emissions at all are compatible with remaining below 1.5 degrees.
3. Let’s take a medium (and optimistic, given the 66% probability, which isn’t super reassuring, and
the large uncertainty in the remaining budget) of 495 GtCO2.
3.1. Our current rate of emissions, we are emitting 42 GtCO2 per year. Moreover, this rate is
growing steadily, and grew by 1.4% last year, making 2017 the largest emission year to
date. https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/march/global-energy-demand-grew-by-
21-in-2017-and-carbon-emissions-rose-for-the-firs.html
3.2. Emissions in 2018 have been growing already according to the International Energy Agency
https://www.eceee.org/all-news/news/news-2018/bad-news-and-despair-global-carbon-
emissions-to-hit-new-record-in-2018-iea-says/
3.3. It doesn’t take much math to realize that we will easily blow through our emissions budget
within 10 years at current rates, and thereafter commit to ever larger warming levels (past
2 degrees, and on course with 4-5 according to some projections).
3.4. That’s why the IPCC SR1.5 shows an emissions pathway consistent with reaching zero
emissions within 20 years starting from now (on average, that would mean roughly 21
GtCO2 per year over 20 years, hence staying within the budget). This is shown in the blue
line in Figure SPM 1.

4. This means that global emissions must decrease steadily starting now: it means that from now
on, year on year, we must decrease our emissions, dropping by at least 2 GtCO2 per year every
year, reaching zero by 2040.
4.1. This is clearly incompatible with fossil fuel companies continuing their operations to 2050.
4.2. This is only compatible with fossil fuel companies starting right now to shut down all
operations, so that they are completely done within 20 years.
5. Where does the “12 years left” to act on climate change come from?
5.1. It comes from paragraph C1 of the IPCC SR15 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), which
states that emissions must be reduced by 45% by 2030 (consistent with figure SPM 1 shown
above). The media has for whatever reason latched on to this date and measure.
5.2. This doesn’t mean we have 12 years (shouldn’t it be 11 anyway?) to do nothing: we have 12
years to do a huge amount, halving global emissions, starting right now.
6. What about “negative” emissions?

2
6.1. If someone from the fossil fuel industry or government say that more emissions, or
emissions for a longer time, are consistent with 1.5 degrees, this means that they are
counting on massive amounts (hundreds of GtCO2 worth) of negative emission
technologies.
6.2. It’s a nice idea, but these technologies don’t exist, and both governments and industry have
not been funding any seriously large research into them.
6.3. So negative emissions are way of trying to avoid the real urgency (immediate action
required) and scope (going to zero emissions within 2-3 decades maximum) of staying
within 1.5 degrees warming.
6.4. And just a reminder that the IPCC SR15 report, especially chapter 3, spell out in great detail
the impacts of going beyond 1.5 to just 2 degrees. Anything beyond 2 degrees will be much
worse than that in terms of species extinction, crop failure, sea level rise, disease spread,
poverty etc.