facebook twitter subscribe

ColumbiaJournalismReview Article

InsideClimate Oil Sands

See Our Stories on Reuters

Donate to SolveClimate News

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

or subscribe by RSS

Also
Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

or subscribe by RSS

view counter

German Climate Council Proposes 'Budget Approach' to Global Emissions

Like a household that has been living beyond its means, the world has been expending more greenhouse gas emitting energy than it can afford.

With the costs of profligate CO2 emissions increasingly apparent and less than 90 days until the start of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen that will determine the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, early September has brought a number of new proposals for achieving carbon reductions.

Among these is a report from the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) outlining what the council – an independent scientific advisory board – calls a “budget approach” to reducing CO2 emissions that in effect proposes putting the world on an emissions diet.

The budget approach, explains Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at Potsdam University and WBGU member, is based on the premise that there’s a limited amount – or fixed budget – of CO2 that can be released worldwide between now and 2050 if we’re to avoid raising global temperatures beyond a point that would cause irreversible climate change.

“The fundamental idea behind the budget approach,” says Rahmstorf, is that it ties reduction targets to total – or cumulative – rather than annual CO2 emissions.

Working within this 40-year time frame and against a maximum global mean temperature rise of 2ºC above pre-industrial levels – the threshold set out in the 2007 IPCC report and adopted as a goal by the European Union – the WBGU proposes distributing the resulting finite “budget” of CO2 emissions equally worldwide on a per capita basis. How each country would stay within budget would depend on current per capita emissions and the mechanisms chosen for achieving required reductions.

“This approach makes sense from a natural science perspective,” says Rahmstorf, “because of the long lifetime of CO2.”

Given that about 50% of any given year’s CO2 emissions can last for decades – if not longer – basing reductions on annual emissions does not account for the extended global warming impacts of what’s released in a single year. Basing reductions targets on total cumulative emissions offers a way of responding to the global warming effects that are already in the pipeline.

The “budget approach” also makes sense from an ethical point of view, says the WBGU, as it allocates emissions equally and calculates national emissions budgets according to current population numbers.

“Countries with high population growth will have to make do with less CO2 per capita,” says Rahmstorf, “just as they have to make do with less land per capita. It is the same as with any other finite resource. The climate system,” he adds, “cares only about total emissions.”

Working within this framework, legally binding national CO2 budgets would be calculated for all countries. To stay within budget, high CO2 emitters, like the U.S. and other industrialized countries, would have to make what the WBGU calls “extensive emissions reduction commitments.” These would be accompanied by technology and financial commitments designed to facilitate emissions trading and transitions away from fossil fuel energy sources. The WBGU also recommends establishing “a world climate bank” to oversee emissions trading and what it calls “decarbonization roadmaps.”

A global CO2 budget that is allocated equally per capita provides flexibility for developing countries, says Rahmstorf. It gives low-emission countries like India room to grow, he explains, while also providing “an immediate incentive to be careful about their emissions, both because they are worth something – they can be sold – and because any excess emissions now will mean that their budget is more limited later on.”

Why should a country (like

Why should a country (like the USA) legally bind itself to limited emissions when we do not have consensus on whether or not global warming even exists? At least half of the scientists in the world believe that this entire issue is a political hoax. New reports now say the atmosphere is cooling, not warming. If we cannot agree on the fundamental issue why should we commit serious dollars to this? There is no common sense being exhibited on this argument.

You are confusing

You are confusing commentators who have vested interested in the fossil fuels industry with scientists. If you want the truth, look at peer-reviewed journals. That's where actual scientists state the findings of their research. Note, too, the very important difference between "scientific findings" and "beliefs".
Check out the facts for yourself. Don't simply take the word of someone on TV or radio who tries to convince you that you're stupid unless you believe exactly what he says.

This is total drivel. It

This is total drivel. It assumes that all co2 comes from man, it ignores the complex inter-relationship between the atmosphere and ocean and it ignores the physics which says that increasing co2 levels have a progressively less impact on temperature, not a linear effect. The paper they are using came from from two Greenpeace scientists at Potsdam, but they don't declare their affiliations when they publish papers.

Is it warmer than it was 150 years ago. You bet it is and thank goodness. Why would we want to live in the conditions of the Little Ice Age? That was NORMAL?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options