Climate Outcome NZ
  • Climate Outcome. Home page.
  • Latest posts & news
  • Temperature
  • Precipitation changes in a warming world.
  • Increased flood damage in a warming world.
  • Drought
  • Wind
  • El Nino Southern Ocilation. ENSO.
  • Sea Level
  • Polar melting
  • Arctic sea ice + weather.
  • West Antarctica
  • Ocean Acidity
  • Plant Die Back. Animal Migration.
  • Climate threats
  • Streams a vital resource.
  • Clean energy alternatives.
  • Climate Change in the Bay of Islands
  • The Author. Bob Bingham.
  • Satellite accuracy.
  • Reference sites

Bob Bingham Blog page.

A series of opinion pieces on, mostly climate change and related subjects to do with New Zealand.

Back to home page.

UN climate change negotiations

14/11/2014

13 Comments

 
Leave the CRUA countries out of the equation.

The UN has been trying since 1992 to get the 196 countries of the world to recognise the extreme dangers of global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. At that time there were 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere and as the science was quite clear that if CO2 levels continued to rise we would be facing an extremely dangerous rate of climate change. There were high expectations that the world’s nations would recognise the problem and sign up to a solution.

What was not recognised was the political and big business influence from the main oil and coal producing countries that did not sign and the number of smaller nations that just ignored the agreement.


We are now in a situation 22 years later where the CO2 levels are at 400 parts per million, which the world last had 3.5 million years ago. We are committed to a minimum of 20 metres of sea level rise and a temperature increase of at least 2⁰C at current CO2 levels. If we keep going with ‘business as usual’ we will have a 5⁰C temperature rise. The current CO2 emissions level is around 35 billion tons a year, this is increasing the CO2 levels at about two ppm a year.

Time and repeatedly failed negotiations have shown that there are four main oil and coal producing nations who are committed to their industries, and committed to disrupting the efforts of the rest of the world to reach an agreement.

We will call these the CRUA countries; Canada, Russia, the USA and Australia. To put it into context the CRUA countries have per capita CO2 emissions of around 20 tons per year, Europe and China are at about 8 tons and India is at 2 tons. There are other players, such as Saudi and Ireland, but these much smaller countries have less influence.

To hold a UN meeting with the aim of reaching an agreement on how to limit the output of CO2 is doomed to failure while the CRUA countries are involved. Each wants to protect its industries and the lifestyle it supports. The science is clear, the only way to prevent CO2 levels from increasing is to stop burning fossil fuels in the quantities we currently do.


I believe the solution is to leave the CRUA countries out of negotiations and the rest of the world can reach an agreement on how to reduce CO2 output. Europe, which is an economic block of 700 million people, have already committed to change and two very large countries, India and China are making big strides to change their energy sources, so we have nearly half of the world’s population already in agreement.

Even though President Obama has signed a commendable agreement with China, the rest of the USA government, Congress and the Senate, are committed to a fossil fuel economy. As are most of industry, the state governors and the American media. China was already changing to renewable energy to clean its atmosphere and reduce imports while the USA, apart from Obama and his supporters, has yet to show any enthusiasm.

Deliberately excluding the CRUA countries would send a strong message that this is a serious matter and those countries roles as major polluters is recognised by the rest of the planet. Slowly but surely, we will stop buying coal and oil from the CRUA countries, and the problem will begin to be resolved.

We will still have to deal with major global problems such as mass population movement and wars but we will at least be trying.


13 Comments
Bob Bristow
20/11/2014 04:05:01 am

Very well stated Sir, and despite the recent verbal accord struck between China and the U.S there is little guarantee that it would continue after the 2016 elections in the U.S.

Your idea might bring one of the biggest contributors to industrial emissions to realize it is part of a global community.

Not good news from today's N.Z Herald.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11361676

Reply
Bob Bingham
20/11/2014 09:02:04 am

Hi Bob. It saddens me that so many nations that I consider friends (my sister is American and my children are Australian) should be on the other side of the fence but we have to stop burning fossil fuels. If Europe can do it the USA can.

Reply
Glen Williams
21/11/2014 03:31:22 am

Hi Bob, as a Kiwi lad I was very pleased to recently locate your local blog. It is very well designed and informative. I am also very interested in the science behind climate change and the actions of the United Nations to restrict our overuse of energy and resources.

I am particularly concerned about the projected 5 degrees temperature rise and the massive sea level rise.

Here is an excellent graph of the current rate of sea level rise using tide gauges and satellite data:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125630565@N05/14923233316/in/set-72157645113383959

Compare that to the palao-data for the last 12,000 years and you can see that things have changed significantly:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125630565@N05/14682305373/in/set-72157645113383959

The IPCC has also modelled surface temp projections in their last 5 reports and are clearly expecting worse to come:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125630565@N05/14475768989/in/set-72157645113383959

Likewise for the Hansen temperature projections which clearly set out the path we need to follow:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125630565@N05/14475778588/in/set-72157645113383959

This is just a sample of some excellent scientific analysis. Given all the data available you can see why we should be worried about the massive increase in carbon dioxide emissions:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125630565@N05/14659183411/in/set-72157645113383959

I also think that the UN should take these 'CRUA' countries out of the equation and focus on funding the industrial development of our planet's most impoverished nations. This is where they will see their best gains in improving poor communities versatility and adaptation to any future climate threats.

Reply
Bob Bingham
21/11/2014 06:24:18 am

Hello Glen and thank you for your comments.I feel that the world is in a dire situation and we must all do what we can to switch to renewable s.

Reply
Glen Williams
21/11/2014 02:07:43 pm

Nice to talk to you Bob.

I don't know if the world is in a dire situation climate-wise. IMO there just isn't enough data to make accurate predictions. I am almost certain that human activity isn't a primary driver of any climate changes we have observed. However, once we resolve the natural variability factor we will probably be in a much better position to predict and mitigate damage and loss of life from weather events.

However, I don't think we will 'run out' of resources; humanity seems to have unlimited capacity for innovation. The energy "dilemma" will definitely be resolved without any need for government intervention. We are living longer, better quality and cleaner lives now than at any time in history. We spend more time (because we can) than ever before observing, protecting and enjoying our environment. The worst environmental damage is still primarily identified in undeveloped or developing nations.

On the subject of energy supply, I guess its a bit like telling medieval farmers that they would not use horse and oxen in the future. They would not have been able to imagine the fantastic benefits that would become available with the combustion engine a few hundred years later. It wasn't necessary to restrict those ancient farmers from access to animal husbandry to get them off horses and it wont be necessary to restrict modern industry to get it off FF. When something comes along that is more effective we will grab it and charge into a new future. I have no idea what my children will use to improve their lives (let alone my grandkids) but they will probably think our so called 'issues' were 'quaint' and a bit backwards.

I just cant agree with you re abandoning good old oil n gas. Its done so much good for humanity in general and could do so much more to help impoverished people become healthy and rich so that they can spend hours worrying about the environment like we do instead of watching their children die... Meanwhile, the great climate change non-debate rages and we wring our hands about saving some unknown future kids who will probably think we were impoverished and uneducated 'back then'.

(Sorry, I've waxed a bit philosophical here but you seem quite receptive. If you want any references for energy, poverty, life expectancy or any of the other stuff I've waffled about please reply or email me)

Anyway, like I said, your blog is very well constructed (can't believe I didn't notice it for so long). Credit to you. Remember, there is a lot we don't know and don't understand. Things aren't too bad out there and are getting better all the time.

Reply
Robert Bristow
21/11/2014 03:21:04 pm

Hi Glen,

Bob Bingham runs a great informative site and I am pleased to have discovered it also. I am retired and have had a great career in the oil exploration and operations industry, assisting Geologists and Petroleum scientists maximize oil field yields and certainly the business has positively changed humanity during the last couple of centuries as you suggest in your comments.

I have now retired and in my retirement have taken 3 University courses in Climate Science and Energy.

I have learnt that industrial mankind has certainly overtaken natural variability (solar, ocean cycles, volcanic etc.) , atmospheric CO2 emissions are steadily rising, and the laws of physics are causing a steady temperature increase as noted by such meteorological bodies as NASA, NOAA, JMA and various independent bodies such as the Hong Kong Meteorological observatory.

We are on an extremely dangerous path and need to drastically reduce our fossil fuel use especially coal within the next few decades. If we do not our grandchildren and their children will suffer enormously.

I do not regret my life in the fossil fuel extraction business, but what I have learnt since retirement, by listening to hard working professors and educators convinces me the industrial revolution needs to change and adapt very quickly, otherwise we will certainly cause drastic climate change and species extinction.

Regards

Robert Bristow

Bob Bingham
21/11/2014 03:54:25 pm

Glen if you don't believe me, take a look at the World Bank report. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/06/17862361/turn-down-heat-climate-extremes-regional-impacts-case-resilience-full-report
Another reliable source is Nasa but they all say the same thing. Burning oil and coal is going to wreck our lifestyle.

Glen Williams
22/11/2014 02:14:36 pm

Hi again Bob (both of you!), well we have certainly drifted off the topic of the UN and its international treaty program (my apologies).

Thanks for the useful link Mr Bingham. As you (and Mr Bristow) rightly point out, many organisations espouse AGW theory. Some even predict catastrophic AGW (which IMO is simply ridiculous).

I don't want to get into a publishing and prestige war with you both about who says what and who says it loudest or 'bestest'. The body count would become massive and in the end both sides would retreat with little gained in terms of actual knowledge about the science of the subject.

Besides, philosophically, I am extremely adverse to these kinds of appeals to authority. When someone else tells you they know all the answers and you should do as they say and stop asking questions you should start to think that they might be selling something. I personally enjoy the process of scientific discovery. Its vital to continue questioning the prevailing orthodoxy.

There are numerous serious questions that cast very reasonable doubts about the validity of AGW hypothesis. It doesn't matter how many people (or organisations) tell you they have the answer or how smart they are. If they cant fit their theory to the actual data, then they are wrong.

Regardless, I'm sure we all agree that more and cheaper FF energy should be developed in poorer nations so that they can also enjoy the wealth and freedom of so called 'first world' countries. This would be a great goal for the UN. As I said above, happy, rich people with full bellies and lots of leisure time are the best environmental advocates in the world.

Reply
Rob Taylor
5/12/2015 03:21:06 pm

Glen, when you have a toothache, do you go to a dentist? Or do you reject the implied "appeal to authority", question the "prevailing orthodoxy" and seek, say, a herbal or spiritual remedy?

BTW, the name for your argument, such as it is, is the "appeal to ignorance", which blithely ignores 150 years of scientific study of the physics of the Earth's climate.

Reply
Robert Bristow
22/11/2014 03:53:06 pm

Hi Glen,

Thanks for your last post, and interesting points. I personally migrated from a temperate climatic region (South West region of the U.K to the Middle East’s empty quarter oil fields where the temperature could reach well in excess of 40+ °C and survived, and certainly the Bedouin’s had survived in these climates (without modern comforts) so your point about AGW is valid.

I had a technical career and relied on latest education to perform my duties, I have an utmost respect for tutors who cover a field as per latest human knowledge.

I feel climate science has been grossly let down generally by politicians and has been generally belittled by fossil fuel interests. Whilst other branches of science (such as Large Hadron Collider – particle theory) have been well supported without controversy.

Such people as Bob Bingham (N.Z) and Peter Sinclair (U.S.A) keep this topic aired, and I am extremely thankful to both of them (for devoting so much time and effort). I now spend around 4-5 hours a day reviewing the latest academic advances on Climate Change from Universities and media outlets and am an editor of a social network site. I feel the seriousness has been suppressed largely by fossil fuel organisations and the like and most people are unaware how serious the problem actually is.

The Notre Dame university placed New Zealand number 2 (next to Norway) as best positioned to adapt to climate change, the impacts are not too obvious down here, but are a lot more obvious around the Arctic circle. In time it will impact New Zealand severely too.

We must stop relying on fossil fuel as the ancient locked up stores of carbon being released is impacting our climate. Svante August Arrhenius worked out the formula in 1896 (and the U.S air force confirmed it in the 1950’s while developing heat seeking anti missile technology) and yet sadly here we are in 2014 still debating it. We must break free - acknowledge the science and move on. We are already seeing extinction of bird and other animal species being affected.

Regards Robert Bristow


Reply
Bob Bingham
6/12/2015 02:13:52 pm

Hi Bob. I am also from the South West UK, Poole Dorset, and the climate in NZ is much the same but 5C warmer. Much smaller population too.

Reply
Eusebio Manuel Vestias pecurto vestias link
16/5/2015 03:22:13 pm

Happy Sustainability 2015

Reply
Bob Bingham
17/5/2015 12:02:03 am

Thank you.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Bob Bingham 

    Occasional blog posts on topical news items concerning the climate.  Please click the RSS feed to receive updates.

    Picture

    Archives

    January 2023
    November 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    May 2021
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    September 2019
    December 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    September 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    Clean Water
    Climate Change.
    CO2 Levels
    El Nino
    Floods
    Methane
    Ocean Acidity
    Pine Island Galacier
    Sea Level Rise
    Soil Loss
    Storms

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly