Copenhagen Accord Commitments Analysis

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.

Instructors seeking a good analysis for students of the current landscape of emissions commitments post-Copenhagen should consider a new piece in Environmental Research Letters, Joeri Rogelj, et al., Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord Pledges and its Global Climatic Impacts – A Snapshot of Dissonant Ambitions, 5 Environmental Research Letters 1-9 (2010).

The key take-aways of the piece:

  1. 138 Parties have now expressed their intention to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord, which is framing the ongoing negotiations toward a global successor agreement to Kyoto;
  2. If nations agreed to 50% reduction by 2050 from 1990 levels, global emissions would need to decline by 3-3.55 annually from 2000 levels, requiring “unprecedented political will” by contrast, global emissions rose by 21% between  1990 and 2005;
  3. The study looked at a low ambition “Case 1″ scenario, without a post-2020 target, and a “Case 2″ scenario in which emissions are halved by 2050 from 1990 levels and emissions continue to decrease after 2050 with an exponential decrease at a rate equal to the average reduction rate in the last decade before 2050
  • The Case 1 scenario yields emissions of 53.2 GtCO2eq in 2020, and Case 2, 47.4 GtCO2eq
  • Under the Case 1 scenario, temperatures are projected to rise between 2.5-4.2C above pre-industrial levels by 2100, and still increasing afterwards. Under the Case 2 scenario, temperatures rise between 1.5-2.6C, with a 49% chance to stay below 2C
  • In the Case 1 scenario and without a 2050 target, media estimates would exceed 450ppm CO2 threshold in approximately 2030; this is concentration threshold where coral reefs would face “rapid and terminal decline;” and aragonite undersaturation, a critical manifestation of ocean acidification, would also occur at this concentration. Even under a Case 2 scenario, the globe would see rapid declines of coral reefs and arctic argonite undersaturation during the 21st Century;

4. Higher ambitions for emissions reductions  for 2020 are necessary to keep options for holding temperature increases to 1.5C or 2C without relying on potentially infeasible  reduction rates after 2020;

5. The absence of a mid-century emission goal is a critical deficit in the Copenhagen Accord.

Related posts:

  1. WRI Analysis of Annex I Emissions Reductions Pledges
  2. Implications of Copenhagen Pledges
  3. WWF Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord
  4. New WRI Analysis of Copenhagen Commitments
  5. Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Leave a Reply