Thank you Aubrey, thought this would be of interest to you, if you hadn't already seen it.
Any past difficulties in accessing links that I might have sent - for which apologies - have arisen because my web email programme helpfully (and invisibly) inserts some code which means that they don't work for anyone else. Don't ask me why!
So I have taken to typing them into the text longhand rather than cutting and pasting them.
D
Yes - thanks David [for some reason I just couldn't get that link to work before] . . .
McCarthy [at the Indi] was beside himself over this paper - "Just read the <alarming tone> of this 'peer-reviewd' paper Aubrey!" . . . .
Add this to IPCC WG1 AR4 Chapter 10 fig. 10.21 and note the <now for the first time in the IPCC> published values for 'coupled' [i.e. includes some feedbacks] . . . to keep under 450 ppmv [the 2 degree threshold] they show nearly zero global emissions by 2050 [see attachments] . . . interesting corroboration of the C&C-based risk-analysis on the APPGCC C&C DVD I sent you - did you get it?. Its been downloaded approaching 50,000 times off the w/site with some very interesting feedback.
So how [one has to ask] can the UK Gov claim to lead the world with a bill that requires minus-60% emissions for the UK by 2050 full stop. It is linked one has to remember, to Stern's safety at 550 ppm for 1% of GDP [does that stand for God's Divine Purpose?] . . .
. . . . as Stenrn said at the LSE last year, "we should be aiming at 450 ppm, but for that we should have started 10 years ago" - the Government might be modest enough to acknowledge that the world didn't start with Stern; David Pearce laid out the 'economics of genocide in the 1990's under Gummer. But the world may well end with his advice.
Then again, how can the Government equate this target and this methodology with their new climate guru [Gore] who now [suddenly] calls for minus-90% for the Developed Coutries in exchange for a global total reduced by 50% within a generation [a perfect C&C fit - albeit 'slow' - again see the DVD].
Milliband defended this government position recently in DEFRA Select Committee hearings and JointCom. And the bill cites Stern as the source of its number. Is it done in ignorance or fear of CBI or what . . . ?
How [one has to ask] can DEFRA keep doing all this and sanctioning the publication of scenarios for 550/750/1000 ppmv in the IPCC.
All this is 'error' and civilization ends unless the [including this] abuse of power does.
The issue includes this need - to end the abuse with a war on error.
Maybe the FCO's Chevening Programme is an arena - its all a 'go' now.
Regards
David
it is indeed a good paper, one written with a tone of urgency, a step long
needed in this area.
Of interest, but in a slightly different area is an older paper by Pacal and
Socolow (2004) which dicusses solving emissions reductions problems using 7
'wedges' which rely on existing technology, rather than the much vaunted
'techonogical solutions' which are 'just' around the corner.
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968)
and more recently, there is the new EU green paper on adapting to climate
change in europe
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0354en01.pdf
it misses out some key areas, but there are signs that they are moving in
the right direction.
it seems to me in the UK there is something of an impasse with regards to
global warming action at the moment. there is a lot of ioslated grass-roots
action, a number of towns and villages undergoing transition to
sustainability on their own accord, and more people making choices over food
(local VS imported etc)....yet, in terms of approaching the time when we
need to think about 90% reductions we have no means of getting to that
target (C&C of course, but that requires the government to still find the
way in which it is going to achieve contraction). there is still a vaccum
(HMG seems to be fairly unsure on what it is doing and on what scientific
basis does it make its decisions) which needs to be addressed soon. We seem
to be leading from the bottom up, but that always encounters obstacles, and
with large changes needed on a short timescale, it needs moe.
Some opinion polls seem keen to paint a growing trend of climate awareness
in the UK, but without the individuals making much action on their part to
address their concerns. We need tough decisions over land use, fossil fuel
use, transport, business, efficiency legislation, power generation, food
production systems, and an economy driven on buying itself out of trouble.
The pace of change is not enough to meet our targets, but i am struggling at
the moment to think what the next step is. I see positive changes in people
and institutions, but too much is talk (and I have been guilty of that
myself too often) and too much is contradicted by other actions.
Best wishes
Jonathan
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
Aubrey Meyer
GCI
37 Ravenswood Road
LONDON E17 9LY
Ph 0208 520 4742
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
