Let’s talk about…
Talking Points for UNFCCC Negotiators and other Climate Junkies
Zero Emissions
You want 2° max, you need zero emissions before the
end of the century, you want 1.5°, you need zero
emissions before 2050. In any case, differentiated
responsibility commands that Annex-I countries get
down to zero way before 2050. This is well within our life
times, it is our generation’s task. And it is not all that
difficult: replace all fossil fuels with renewables. From
historical perspective, everybody was living zero
emissions lifestyles until a couple of generations ago.
Only the last 1-2 generations have really messed up and
even forgotten about zero emission lifestyles. We will
need to get back on track. Plans already exist on an
individual, community, city, regional, national and global
level.
Global Target 2050
COP16 agreed (who noticed??) that Durban shall set a
global 2050 target. Given the dire impacts so far with
0.8° warming, recent climate science and the will of over
100 countries, 2° cannot be the aim, it must be 1.5°
warming at the most. This implies zero emissions
globally by 2050, at the latest.
Global Carbon Budget
From a global 2050 goal, a “budget” comes as a straight
consequence. The amount of carbon emissions in the
next four decades will be the main factor (besides what’s
already up there and some feedback loops in the global
climate system not yet fully understood) that determines
the amount of climate change we will get to suffer. Every
government should spill out their number: what should
be the global budget up to 2050? This can then be
related to climate science and to national impacts and
mitigation plans and targets. As a rule of thumb: you
can’t emit more then 1-3 tons per person per year from
now to 2050 and then have to stop completely, if we
want to meet any of the current global targets (1.5° or
2°).
Equity Principles
Governments also need to spill out the principles for
sharing that budget they would like to apply. The most
straightforward approach is a per capita rule where
every human being would get the same allowance.
Whoever criticizes per capita should come up with a
better alternative. Grandfathering (whoever polluted
most in the past gets most) is certainly not a viable
alternative. The IPCC has made a list of equity principles
(http://kjells.a.wiki-site.com/index.php/Equity_Principles)
which should serve as a starting point for this necessary
discussion.
Per capita Emissions 2020
We daughters and sons of Mother Earth all share the
responsibility for a stable climate. So if you are emitting
greenhouse gases, you have to face the facts. The
target numbers currently publicized are next to
meaningless, since they have no common reference and
when they do, it is a skewed one. To find a way through
this mess, we should use per capita emissions to
evaluate performance. Here are the per capita numbers
for the Copenhagen Accord Pledges, which
governments are now trying to formalize:
http://es.scribd.com/doc/51865264/Per-Capita-
Emissions-2020-with-colours
It is shocking that many countries want to be emitting
more than 10 tons per capita ten years from now, when
this is valuable time that we should be using for a swift
decarbonisation of the economy. Compare this to the
global budget and the “available” 1-3 tons per capita
before going to zero in 2050!
Supply-side Mitigation (aka “Leave it in the
ground!”)
The total reserves of fossil fuels are too much to handle
for the climate. Only a tiny part can be extracted if we
want to meet 2° or 1.5° targets. (see
http://tinyurl.com/43y78wb) Unfortunately governments
don't coordinate their climate and extraction policies.
That is urgently needed, so extraction can be slowed
down and eventually abandoned ("phased out").
Zero Emission Plans (aka Zero Carbon Action Plans)
This is the next necessary step for most cities, countries,
regions: figuring out the details of how to get down to
zero fossil emissions (and how to manage land in a way
that minimizes GHG emissions and increases biological
capture). The good thing: you don't need to wait on the
government to do it, other actors can take the lead!
There are examples of pioneers who have already put in
much thought and work. You find a list here:
http://kjells.a.wiki-site.com/index.php/Zero_Emissions
REDD+ and Markets
Completely decarbonizing the global economy and
leaving fossil fuels in the ground is a prerequisite for
stabilizing the climate. Any mechanism that delays this
structural change is dangerous. If REDD+ were to be set
up as a "market mechanism" or even only partly funded
through markets, this would mean that fossil emissions
are made viable through offsetting in the forests. The
transformation gets delayed. And what in theory is the
same amount of carbon, in practice is plagued by a host
of technical difficulties that do not allow to be sure that
the carbon actually stays in the trees forever, but one
thing is sure: the fossil carbon won't go back down into
the hole after burning it.
REDD+ and Safeguards
The safeguards are like a list of things that can go
wrong. But mentioning them on paper doesn't guarantee
that they won't go wrong, much less when only
"information sharing" is required on their implementation.
Pilots are needed to try them out on the ground.
Climate Literacy
Climate Literacy entails understanding Climate Change
and understanding how the climate crisis can be solved.
Details here: http://kjells.a.wiki-
site.com/index.php/Climate_Literacy
Generations
3 generations ago most people were leading zero
emissions or at least low-carbon lives. The currently
leading one is the "fossil" generation. They don't know
anything else! Our generation needs to get back to zero
emissions. That is our task and there is not more time
than our professional lives for accomplishing the full
transformation.
Climate Positive Living
It is possible even today to live well and have a
beneficial impact on the climate, taking GHGs out of the
atmosphere instead of putting more up. What you need
to do is
1. Account
2. Eliminate
3. Over-compensate
For all three there are options available. This way you
become a pioneer that opens a path to a zero emissions
lifestyle, a path that the whole society will have to follow
soon.
Money
If we could spend as much money on climate change as
on military, that would be a good first step. We don't
agree that the World Bank is handling the climate
money, they are the ones financing fossil infrastructure,
even today!
“Developed/Developing” Countries
This is the “fossilized” thinking that keeps us stuck. What
good is a "development" that destroys Mother Earth?
The development as we know it, based on fossils is the
problem! All countries need to change, but Over-
Consuming Countries (OCCs) even more so than Lower
Consuming Countries (LCCs).
Contact: YOUNGO Zero Emissions Working Group, Kjell
Kühne, kjell.kuehne@gmail.com