Download Next step-beyond Kyoto

Next step-beyond Kyoto
• Meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009
• The Copenhagen Accord was drafted by the US, China, India, Brazil
and South Africa on December 18, and judged a "meaningful
agreement" by the United States government.
• It was "taken note of", but not "adopted", in a debate of all the
participating countries the next day, and it was not passed
unanimously.
• The document recognized that climate change is one of the greatest
challenges of the present day and that actions should be taken to
keep any temperature increases to below 2°C.
• The document is not legally binding and does not contain any
legally binding commitments for reducing CO2 emissions.
• Many countries and non-governmental organizations were opposed
to this agreement, but, as of January 4, 2010, 138 countries have
signed the agreement.
Cap and Trade
• An environmental policy that caps emissions while giving source flexibility
in how they comply with those caps-uses economic incentives to get
compliance
• A limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted is set.
• Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required
to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent
the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and
credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level.
• Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy
credits from those who pollute less called a trade. In effect, the buyer is
paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having
reduced emissions by more than was needed.
• In theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so,
achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society.
• Allowed under Kyoto for nations to sell their credits.
• Main objections are it will raise energy costs to the consumer.
American Clean Energy and Security Act
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Also known as the Waxman-Markey Act
Proposes a cap and trade system for Greenhouse Gas emissions
Requires electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy
efficiency by 2020.
Invests in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including renewable energy, carbon capture and
sequestration, electric and other advanced technology vehicles, and basic scientific research and development.
Protects consumers from energy price increases. According to estimates from the Environmental Protection
Agency, the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a
postage stamp per day.
The bill requires a 17-percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020; this would reduce United States'
emissions by about 80 percent by 2050. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as investments in
preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions in carbon emissions.
It includes a renewable electricity standard) requiring each electricity provider who supplies over 4 million MWh
to produce 20 percent of its electricity from renewable by 2020. There is a provision whereby 5% of this standard
can be met through energy efficiency savings, as well as an additional 3% with certification of the Governor of the
state in which the provider operates.
It provides for modernization of the electrical grid
It provides for expanded production of electric vehicles
It mandates significant increases in energy efficiency in buildings, home appliances, and electricity generation.
Climategate
• Also known as the Climate Research Unit e-mail
controversy
• Internet leak of thousands of emails and other
documents from the University of East Anglia's
Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
• emails and documents were obtained through
the hacking of a server.
• hacker had filtered them using keywords,
including "Yamal", "tree rings", and "Phil Jones",
so that these names appear in many of the
documents
Climategate-what was stolen
• more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as
commented source code, pertaining to climate change
research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.
• The vast majority of the emails related to four
climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Michael
E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University (PSU), one of
the originators of the graph of temperature trends
dubbed the "hockey stick graph”; Tim Osborn, a
climate modeller; and Mike Hulme, director of the
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
• The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66
of the 1,073 emails,
Climategate-allegations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allegations that the hacked emails showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data.
A few other commentators said that the evidence supported claims that dissenting scientific
papers had been suppressed.
The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC include
their own views and exclude others and to withhold scientific data.
Reason reported that the CRU evidently plotted to remove journal editors with whom they
disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked.[
The ICO made a statement that the emails revealed that freedom of information requests were 'not
dealt with as they should have been under the legislation' but that they could not prosecute due to
statue of limitations.
Academics and climate change researchers said that nothing in the emails proved wrongdoing, and
dismissed the allegations.
Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect
evidence that man made global warming is a real threat, and said that emails were being
misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct. They also concluded that
there were disturbing suggestions that scientists had avoided sharing scientific data with skeptical
critics.
Climategate-understanding the trick
• Many commentators quoted one email referring to a "trick" used in
Mann's graph to deal with the well-known tree ring divergence problem to
"hide the decline" that particular proxy showed for modern temperatures
after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising.
• These two phrases were taken out of context by climate change skeptics
including Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin as
though they referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, even
though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.
• In their inquiry into allegations of research misconduct, Penn State
reviewers found ”the so-called 'trick' was nothing more than a statistical
method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in
a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad
array of peers in the field.
• The Parliament of the United Kingdom select committee inquiry
concluded that "[Trick] appears to be a colloquialism for a "neat" method
of handling data," and "[hide the decline] was a shorthand for the practice
of discarding data known to be erroneous”.
Hide the decline?
• Refers to the omission of Siberian tree ring
data from after 1960, as it shows a
discrepancy with thermometer data.
• Not yet understood why these are discrepant,
but a number of factors besides temperature
(soil properties, precipitation and the tree’s
age) can effect tree ring width.
How do scientists handle data?
• Experimental data is not perfect
• Scientists need to evaluate the reliability of data
– Error bars
– Understanding how it was gathered(experimental
design)
• It is legitimate to discard data from an analysis,
provided:
– You have a defensible reason for doing so
– You are up front about what data was discarded from
the analysis and why
The hockey stick graph again:
BEST Project results
Has it stopped in the last 15 years?
Finally last 130 years
Different views of the same data
Be a critical thinker!