Canada Agrees to 2 Degrees (But Already Backtracking)

Something of a new approach developed at this week’s G8 meetings: European nations successfully lobbied the Obama administration to sign up for an agenda to keep average global temperature rise below 2 degrees. After initial resistance the Americans agreed and Canada dutifully tagged along.

The underlying strategy is a common theory of negotiation — instead of fighting over “means” you get everyone to agree to the ultimate “end” and then things fall into place. The European Commission President Jose Barroso, interviewed in advance, layed out the theory:

“If you accept this (2 degrees), then the rest will come. It is logical…We are not there yet and there is still a long way to go in the 149 days after this summit to Copenhagen. But if we have this agreement, then we can fill in all the other lines.” He added: “These negotiations are always decided in the final meters and the last few meters are always difficult. But when you arrive in the final meters with these agreements already in place, real progress can be made.”

Aaaah, if only the world were logical. While it is certainly positive that the G8 talks didn’t collapse over 2 degrees, already Canada and Russia are clarifying that the commitment won’t really change anything and that the emissions cuts of 80% by mid-century (also agreed in the G8 statement) that logically follow are only “aspirational:”

Climate change “bad boys” Canada and Russia were distancing themselves Thursday from an ambitious declaration at the G8 summit here that developed countries will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice indicated there were no plans to adjust Canada’s goals…

“No, we don’t need to change our policies,” Prentice, who described the 80-per-cent target as “aspirational,” said Thursday morning.

The G8’s Wednesday declaration “really fits together well with the pathway that Canada is on….”

Well, as we all know, “the pathway that Canada is on” is increasing emissions, no concerted national energy efficiency program and no concerted clean energy strategy.

Now, while there is no question that it would be far less catastrophic to stay below 2 degrees than not, climate scientists warn even that may be too high. And any serious observer has to recognize that staying below 2 degrees would entail massive, unprecedented efforts that governments are simply not preparing their populations to undertake:

Virtually all electricity generation will have to come from renewables, nuclear power or so-called “clean” coal – if that technology can be made to work on a commercial scale.

The amount of electricity generated in Western countries will have to rise significantly – doubling or even trebling – as transport and the heating systems for homes and businesses switch away from fossil fuels.

Alongside a re-fuelling revolution would go a frugality revolution, as societies put an end to energy wastage.

All of that is implied by the 80% target….

But so far, leaders have not talked collectively of how to jump-start this revolution.

The journey has a low-carbon destination, but no roadmap.

And that is what makes some suspicious that the big targets are more about dressing windows than about re-writing the world’s energy rulebook. Link

The Obama administration has begun a process of rallying the American public to a clean energy revolution. And they have put serious stimulus dollars behind the transition. But by and large we are seeing nothing like the public outreach that rallies a nation to great things. Certainly Canadians are not being engaged by our federal government — quite the opposite in fact. And such an effort to prepare the population for ambitious change, it seems to me, is the real litmus test that governments have gotten serious.

And aside from the political realities, here’s a good reality check on the “real reality” (ie: the one governed by the laws of physics) of 2 degrees by the excellent RealClimate:

… even a “moderate” warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society, leading potentially to the conflict and suffering that go with failed states and mass migrations. Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, a target of 2°C seems almost cavalier.

Nonetheless, the RealClimate authors find the G8 developments a “constructive step.” No argument here. We are making progress despite the recalcitrance of countries like Canada. Just not nearly the scale of progress yet to match the scale of the threat.

Here’s hoping political progress is as non-linear as (non-human) nature.

More:

The G8 Declaration

Globe: Target found in G8’s climate fight

Star: Climate change 2 degree limit gets support

BBC: World Powers Accept Warming Limit

Canwest: Canada, Russia backtrack from G8 emissions targets

RealClimate’s initial take

New York Times’ Andy Revkin delves into The Two-Degree solution

and a good grapple with the ins-and-outs of 2 degrees at the Energy Collective