2014 Was the Warmest Year Globally Ever Recorded

2014 had the highest global average temperature ever recorded.  The U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA ) jointly announced on Jan. 16, 2015 that the year 2014 was the hottest year since record keeping began in 1880.  This result represents the globally averaged temperature, for both land and ocean surfaces, over the entire year. 

A 1½ minute video from NASA gives more information on this finding.  It includes a speedy review, year-by-year and location-by-location across a map of the globe, of how annual average temperatures, in ºC (multiply by 1.8 for ºF), have increased from 1957 to 2014.  (They are shown as the differences from a 30-year reference period from about 1945 to about 1975).

The ten hottest years on record occurred between 1998 and the present (see Details section at the end of this post). 

[Update added January 26, 2015]: The United Kingdom Met (i.e., meteorological) Office jointly with the University of East Anglia reported, using their own data set, that 2014 was tied with 2010 as the being the warmest year on record, within the 95% confidence limit of their data.  This occurred even though 2014 did not experience a Pacific Ocean warming event known as El Nino.

The “pause” in rising temperatures of recent years is misleading. The new warm record for 2014 is significant because those who doubt the reality of global warming have pointed to an apparent “pause” in warming from about 1998 through 2013 (i.e., up to the time of the new NOAA/NASA report).  The apparent “pause” may be seen in the image below, compared to the clearly rising temperatures before 1998.

                 Global average temperature from 1980 to 2013.
                 Source: Data table from National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
                 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt


The new result for 2014 places its data point slightly higher than the two next-warmest years, 2005 and 2010.  Although it is too early to tell, the new information suggests that the earth may be resuming its climb to higher global average atmospheric temperatures.

The “pause” is understood to be temporary, in any case, in view of the image below.

Global average temperatures from 1850 to 2012, presented as differences from the average temperature from 1961 to 1990.  The different colored lines represent different data records.  Top, annual data points; bottom, 10-year averages with the gray shading showing confidence estimates.

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 5^th Assessment Report, Part 1; http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

The graphic shows that there was an even longer “pause” between the late 1940’s and the mid 1970’s; nevertheless, that “pause” ended and the global average temperature rose dramatically in the three following decades.  Since trends in global warming become apparent only on long time scales, a decade or longer, the bottom panel in the graphic above, presenting atmospheric temperatures as ten-year averages, suggests that the purported “pause” in the first decade of the 21^st century may not be a significant “pause” at all.

Ocean Heat Content.  The temperatures discussed above relate only to surface air temperatures around the globe.  But 90% of the excess heat retained by the earth system is absorbed in the oceans, measured in an upper zone down to a depth of 700 m (2,296 ft), as well as in a deeper zone from the surface to 2,000 m (6,562 ft).  A graph showing the time dependence of the ocean heat content to both depths is seen in the image below.

Five-year averaged relative global ocean heat content through 2013 for the upper zone (0-700 m) and the full-depth zone (0-2000 m), evaluated as the difference from the average heat content between about 1975 and 1990. Source: NOAA; http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ .

Significantly, the image above shows clearly that during the present “pause” in the global average air temperature (1998-present) heat continued to accumulate in the waters of the oceans down to 2,000 m without any “pause”.  Thus, most of the excess heat absorbed by the earth system due to global warming is stored in the oceans.  Climate scientists have identified the role of the oceans in storing excess heat in recent publications, and pointed out that sooner or later that excess heat will be transferred back to the atmosphere (see Details, below).

Conclusions

The year 2014 had the hottest annual global average air temperature since record keeping began in 1880.  This result, and related information presented by NOAA and NASA, indicate  that there may be no significant “pause” in warming of the air temperature of the Earth, contrary to statements made by global warming skeptics and deniers.  The climate scientist Michael E. Mann, at the Pennsylvania State University, wrote  “It is exceptionally unlikely that we would be witnessing a record year of warmth, during a record-warm decade, during a several decades-long period of warmth that appears to be unrivaled for more than a thousand years, were it not for the rising levels of planet-warming gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels.”  Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam (Germany) Institute for Climate Impact Research stated   “[T]he fact that the warmest years on record are 2014, 2010 and 2005 clearly indicates that global warming has not ‘stopped in 1998,’ as some like to falsely claim.”

Indeed, 90% of the excess heat retained by the earth system is absorbed by the oceans, a process continuing without a “pause” up to the present.  Long-lived ocean currents redistribute this heat around the earth and among zones of varying depth.  It takes many years for heat to re-emerge to the surface and exchange back into the atmosphere.  Yet it is considered essentially certain that this will indeed occur. 

Global warming due to continued emissions of greenhouse gases will continue indefinitely unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.  If the peoples of the earth succeed in lowering annual emission rates to near zero, further warming will come to an end, and the earth will experience a new, higher global average temperature than we have now.  We must strive to reduce annual emission rates to (near) zero in order to minimize the additional warming of the earth.

Details

The ten hottest years on record occurred between 1998 and the present.  The second hottest years, only slightly less warm on average than 2014, were 2005 and 2010 (see the first graphic above).   The finding that 2014 exceeded all other records is even more significant because it occurred in a year in which the El Nino Southern Oscillation, a warming pattern in the Pacific Ocean, was absent. 

NOAA presents the global map, below, showing deviations in temperature from the reference period 1981-2010 as color-coded shades grading the deviations from the average.

Global grid showing color-coded deviations of the temperature in 2014 from the average temperature over the period 1981-2010.  Red shades represent temperatures warmer than the average, and blue shades represent temperatures cooler than the average.  (Grey regions had no data available.)

Source: NOAA; http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

  

The image above is noteworthy, since it shows that there were many regions, both on land and oceanic, recording record warmest average temperatures whereas there was only one region, south of South America, having a record coldest average temperature.  Indeed, most regions of the earth, both land and sea, had temperatures in 2014 higher than the 1981-2010 average.
 

Climate scientists have pointed out in recent publications that heat is accumulating in the oceans and that sooner or later the excess heat will re-emerge, so that the global average air temperature will resume climbing.

Loeb and coworkers (Nature Geoscience, vol. 5, pp. 110–113 (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1375) compared the energy imbalance of the Earth system with ocean heat content.   Combining satellite temperature measurements and ocean heat measurements to 1,800 m (5,900 ft) they found “between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a [significant rate]. We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”

Guemas and coworkers (Nature Climate Change vol. 3, pp. 649–653 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1863)  examined the current “pause” in global warming.  Using historical ocean temperature data and a coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model, they “attribute the onset of [the “pause”] to an increase in ocean heat uptake.”  They verify that no reduction in the sun’s radiation was found which could explain the “pause”.

Chen and Tung (Science Vol. 345, pp. 897-903 (2014)  DOI: 10.1126/science.1254937) analyzed earlier data as well as more extensive newer observations gathered by buoys disposed worldwide at various ocean depths.  They found that “the [“pause”] is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans….Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years.”  They further conclude “because the planetary heat [reservoirs] in the Atlantic and the Southern Oceans remain intact, the [“pause”] should continue on a decadal time scale. When the internal variability that is responsible for the current [“pause”] switches sign, as it inevitably will, another episode of accelerated global warming should ensue.”

© 2015 Henry Auer

The U.S. Needs a Single Department/Agency Dedicated to Global Warming

Summary.  The National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee issued a draft version of its Third National Climate Assessment in 2013.  The Committee is drawn from bureaus and divisions within thirteen diverse federal departments and agencies.  Its mission is to report on scientific information and assessments thereof related to global warming, but does not include a mandate to formulate policy.

These and other aspects of the Committee’s composition and responsibilities lead to identification of several administrative problems and deficiencies.

This post recommends that in order to overcome these difficulties a single cabinet-level department or agency be created solely devoted to most or all aspects of the global warming issue.  This new entity critically should be charged with proposing policies addressing mitigation of and adaptation to further global warming.

The National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) issued a draft version of its Third National Climate Assessment (NCA) in 2013.  The NCADAC was established in 2010 under terms of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972.  It is housed in the Department of Commerce under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The NCADAC consists of 60 members.  Forty-five senior authors drawn from academic, nonprofit and consulting organizations prepared the report.  240 other scientists and professionals assisted the NCADAC.  The work was coordinated by fourteen ex officio members drawn from thirteen federal agencies.  These are the logos of the participating departments and agencies:

Source: http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/

 

In turn the NCA is authorized under the Global Change Research Act of 1990  (the Act) to “assist the nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change”.  It is assembled in the Global Change Research Program.   A principal objective of the Act is to “improve cooperation among Federal agencies and departments with respect to global change research activities”.  In addition, every four years it is to prepare an assessment for the President and Congress that (1) evaluates and interprets its results, including scientific uncertainties, (2) analyzes effects of global change on the environment and on an extensive range of human economic and social activities, and (3) analyzes current natural and man-made trends and offers projections of future trends for up to 100 years.  It is noteworthy that its tasks do not include formulation of policies to address global warming.

 

The draft NCA was open for comments for a time, and its final version in response to comments received is in preparation.  Links to the full draft report, as well as to each chapter individually, are available here.

 

Thirteen Federal Departments and Agencies

As noted above, official government participation in the preparation of the NCA comes from twelve departments and agencies and the White House.  These are

 

Agency for International Development

Department of the Interior

Department of Energy

Department of Defense

Department of Homeland Security

Smithsonian Institution

Department of Agriculture

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

White House Council on Environmental Quality

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Department of Transportation

Department of Health and Human Services

Environmental Protection Agency

National Science Foundation

Department of State

 

Descriptions of each department or agency including the section within each having to do with global warming, and the title of each ex officio member participating in preparing the report, are given in the Details section at the end of this post.

 

Several serious problems arise from the present dispersed nature of the federal global warming effort.  The Details provided at the end of this post make clear that the offices in the federal government working on global warming are strewn across a myriad of departments and agencies.  Only perhaps two of these, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are concerned primarily with the environment in general, and within them, specifically the issue of global warming.  The problems arising from the existing arrangement include the following important issues.

 

1)     Personnel from thirteen federal departments and agencies with a broad range of administrative responsibilities serve as Acting Ex Officio Members coordinating the preparation of this third NCA. 

 

     As noted above, NCADAC is not mandated to formulate policy recommendations to address global warming and the harms it inflicts on humanity.  (For example, see the NCA Executive Summary, in the section “Responding to Climate Change”.  It states that mitigation approaches are being assessed elsewhere than by the NCADAC, including by various departments and agencies among those in the NCADAC.)

 

     Furthermore, the departments and agencies of the NCADAC have disparate objectives and conduct differing activities related to global warming.  These are carried out in a fashion that is administratively segregated, without significant coordination by an upper level cabinet official.  This situation potentially inhibits effective communication between personnel in related fields.  Important research and assessments are conducted by various ones of these agencies and departments, while regulation of emissions from different sources originates in still other agencies and departments. 

 

     In summary, the present status of research, evaluation and policy development related to global warming critically lacks a centralized, authoritative, coordinated organizational structure.

 

2)     Many of the organizations in the NCADAC are full federal departments headed by a cabinet member, a Secretary, or an agency headed by an Administrator.  Since s/he heads a very large organization (see Details), her/his attention is divided among many issues over time.  For this reason s/he can neither provide the focus nor devote the attention to global warming that it merits.

 

3)     Some of these departments and agencies oversee a variety of activities, many of whose goals are inconsistent with each other, with respect to the issue of global warming (see Details).  Consequently it is difficult for the particular Secretary or Administrator to develop and implement policies that could address global warming as effectively as possible, because s/he represents conflicting subordinate divisions.  The same person is being asked to perform functions that are mutually opposed to each other.  This is not an effective way to promote policies that address the issue of global warming.

 

4)     It is possible that vital communication among personnel engaged in their particular activities within their departments and agencies may be inefficient, simply because of bureaucratic barriers.  (This writer has no substantiation for this surmise.) 

 

5)     Most of the specific offices, bureaus and divisions contributing to preparation of the NCA are housed in larger departments and agencies.  As such they have to contend with their peer offices, bureaus and divisions within their departments and agencies for support from limited budgetary resources.  This potentially limits their capabilities for carrying out their objectives.

 

The U.S. needs a new cabinet-level department/agency dedicated to global warming.  The very motto of the NCADAC, “Thirteen Agencies, One Vision…”,

 

 

cries out for just such a solution.  This vision in reality must be expanded to the notion that America’s effort against continued warming be empowered by strong science, critical evaluation, and bold new federal policies. 

 

Bureaus, offices and divisions within the thirteen agencies of the NCADAC contribute diverse activities to the assembly of the NCA; these are identified below in the Details section.  The statement of purpose of the NCADAC, to “improve cooperation among Federal agencies and departments with respect to global change research activities”, speaks directly to the crucial weakness of current federal efforts to combat global warming, namely, the diffused location of efforts among executive branch departments and agencies.  The Details section makes clear just how broadly these responsibilities are scattered.

 

In order to overcome the managerial, bureaucratic and budgetary impediments to the development of cogent global warming policy, all or most of these activities should be united under the leadership of a new Department or Agency dealing exclusively with global warming.  (A reasonable case for exceptions exists perhaps for preserving efforts devoted to international climate negotiations within the Department of State, and for keeping the Sustainable Infrastructure section within the Department of Defense, for example).

 

A single department or agency would resolve the difficulties identified above.  1) The scattered, diffuse distribution of efforts devoted to global warming would be centralized into a unified administrative structure.  The mission of the new department or agency would include formulation of policy, not merely research to collect new information and evaluation of that information.  2) The department secretary or agency administrator could focus all her/his efforts on the single subject of global warming.  3) The attention of the department secretary or agency administrator would not be diverted by needing to concern herself/himself with the prerogatives of conflicting subordinate divisions.  4) Having a single administrative structure would facilitate communication among personnel working on various aspects of the global warming effort.  And 5) formulation of the budget and allocation of resources could be accomplished within the administrative structure of the new entity to optimize efficiency and effectiveness.

 

It is concluded that the U. S. should create a single new cabinet-level department or agency whose mission would be to address all aspects of the global warming problem.  Doing so would overcome serious bureaucratic problems that currently exist, and optimize federal efforts in this endeavor.

 

Details

 

Federal Agencies Involved in Global Change (Many statements below are based on information obtained from agency-specific internet pages and from Wikipedia.)  As noted above, the fourteen offices whose staffs were officially involved in assembling the NCA are components of thirteen separate departments or agencies.  The details below provide thumbnails of these departments and agencies, and the offices in which the staff members are located.

 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

 

EPA is a free-standing federal agency created in 1970 by an executive order from President Nixon.  Its head, the Administrator, has cabinet-level authority.

 

Its organization chart presents twelve Offices, including Air and Radiation, Research and Development, and Water.  The Office of Air and Radiation is responsible for controlling air pollution and radiation exposure, and includes the subjects of climate change, energy efficiency, pollution from vehicles and engines, acid rain, and stratospheric ozone depletion.  EPA gained authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act by the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007.  Under this authority EPA and the Department of Transportation jointly regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, i.e. from distributed sources.  EPA also uses this authority to regulate emissions from fixed point sources, primarily electric power plants. 

 

A member of the Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division is a member of the team overseeing preparation of the NCA.

 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

 

NASA, an independent federal agency, was established in 1958 to develop civilian space exploration.  Currently many of the modalities used to measure and assess global warming and its terrestrial effects use NASA spacecraft.  Its organization chart shows the main aspects of its operations. 

 

The Senior Advisor for Inter-Organizational Environmental Science, NASA Science Mission Directorate helps supervise the preparation of the NCA. 

 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

NOAA is but one division of many in the Department of Commerce.  Most of these are directed toward promotion and assessment of domestic commerce and international trade. 

Within this setting NOAA appears to be an outlier, having little in common with the other divisions.  Its organization chart clearly shows its emphasis on oceanic and atmospheric research.  It uses advanced scientific technologies to study changes in the oceans and the atmosphere, including global climate observation and use of state-of-the-art climate models. 

 

A scientist in NOAA’s Climate Program Office helps prepare the NCA.

 

Funding for preparing the NCA and for the NCADAC is shared between NASA and NOAA.

 

White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

 

CEQ promotes policies within the White House intended to limit emission of greenhouse gases and promoting renewable energy sources.  In these ways it seeks to mitigate global warming.

 

The Deputy Associate Director of CEQ participates in assembling the NCA.

 

Department of Energy (DOE)

 

DOE has expanded from the original Atomic Energy Commission created to host civilian applications of nuclear energy after World War II.  It was elevated to the cabinet-level DOE in 1977.  Its organization chart shows it has major responsibilities in military and civilian aspects of nuclear power.  In addition, in the Office of Science and Energy there are an Office of Science, and Assistant Secretaries for Fossil Energy, and for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.  Separate sections, reporting directly to the Secretary of Energy, include the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which supports new commercial ventures in renewable energy, and the Energy Information Agency.

 

This summary shows that within the same Department there are programs dealing with the fossil fuel industry on the one hand, and renewable energy on the other.   

 

The Director of the Climate and Environmental Sciences Division, found in the Office of Biological and Environmental Research, a component of the Office of Science, is an official supervising preparation of the NCA.

 

Department of the Interior (DOI)

 

The organization chart for DOI shows five primary divisions, including Land and Minerals Management; Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and Water and Science. 

 

The Water and Science division includes the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), whose mission comprises Climate and Land Use Change, Core Science Systems, Ecosystems, Energy and Minerals, Environmental Health, Natural Hazards, and Water. 

 

The Land and Minerals Management division oversees public lands, offshore waters and federal energy and mineral resources; this includes granting permits for and regulating natural resource extraction on federal lands.  DOI’s division of Land and Minerals Management includes the Bureau of Land Management; the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement; and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.  The Bureau of Land Management oversees American public lands, about one-eighth of the total area of the U. S.  Its responsibilities include regulating natural resource development such as logging, mining and extraction of fossil fuels, as well as projects for renewable energy.

 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management governs the development of offshore oil and gas resources in an environmentally and economically acceptable way, as well as developing offshore renewable energy.

 

It is seen from this summary that DOI comprises development activities in the realms of both fossil fuels and other minerals, and growth of renewable energy.  Historically its emphasis has been on the first of these activities.

 

The USGS Chief Scientist for Climate and Land Use Change is an official supervising the NCA.

 

National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research projects proposed primarily by academic investigators across the spectrum of scientific endeavor.  The Director of NSF’s Program in Decision, Risk and Management Sciences contributes to coordinating the preparation of the NCA.

 

The Smithsonian Institution  was founded in 1846.  Iits website states it is the largest museum and research organization in the world. Its Environmental Research Center studies connections between land and water in coastal zones, including effects of global warming.  A Senior Policy Advisor focusing on global environmental issues participates in supervising preparation of the NCA.

 

Department of Transportation (DOT)

 

DOT’s principal objective is promoting ease and safety of domestic transportation and travel, and fostering their economic development.  Its various sections relate to highways, waterways, air travel, railroads, pipelines and movement of hazardous materials. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles originate jointly from DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA.  CAFÉ standards are the executive branch’s means for regulating fossil fuel use in distributed (i.e., moving) emission sources.

 

An energy economist working in the Office of the Secretary is an official overseeing preparation of the NCA.

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a component of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  HHS also operates the Social Security Administration, Medicare, and the National Institutes of Health. An epidemiologist who is Associate Director for Climate Change in the Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects at the National Center for Environmental Health of the CDC is an official supervising preparation of the NCA.

 

Department of Agriculture (DOAg)

 

The organization chart for DOAg has seven divisions, all related to aspects of agriculture, both domestic and foreign.  

 

The DOAg official supporting the preparation of the NCA is Director of the Climate Change Program Office (CCPO), which is responsible for coordinating climate change research and program activities in the Department.  These activities set forth the causes and consequences of global warming, as well as ways of mitigating and adapting to it.

 

Department of Defense (DOD)

 

DOD is a large organization responsible for military activities of the U. S.  The DOD official contributing to preparation of the NCA is Program Manager for Sustainable Infrastructure in the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program.

 

Department of State (DOS)

 

DOS has an office for special envoys and representatives reporting directly to the Secretary (see organization chart) , one of whom is devoted to international negotiations on climate change.  A DOS official in this office participates in preparation of the NCA.

 

The U. S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is also a component of DOS, reporting directly to the Secretary.  The Global Climate Change Coordinator in USAID is an official overseeing preparation of the NCA.

 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

 

DHS seeks to keep the U. S. secure from external threats.  Its organization chart shows seven operational divisions.  DHS was assembled from several other federal agencies after the attacks of September 11, 2001.  The Senior Counsel to the Secretary participates in preparation of the NCA.

 

© 2014 Henry Auer

The Annual U. N. Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa

Summary.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will convene its next conference at Durban, South Africa from November 28 to December 9, 2011.  The conference will consider topics contained in the Cancun Agreements from last year’s meeting.  These include mitigation of global warming, adaptation to harmful effects arising from global warming, reducing emissions by slowing or reversing deforestation, codifying the trustworthiness of emissions data, and establishing funding to help developing countries implement mitigation and adaptation measures.

It is predicted that the world will continue to emit increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, by burning fossil fuels, in the absence of policies that limit these emissions.  Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will exacerbate global warming and its harmful effects.  Most of the increasing emissions rate originates from developing, rather than from developed, countries.  Yet major emitters among developing countries have not put forward policies to limit the absolute amount of their emissions.  U. S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern has recognized this problem as a legacy approach from two decades ago that is no longer valid today. 

The Durban Conference should address the distinction in predicted emissions rate between developed and developing nations.  It should make progress toward implementing a worldwide program directed toward limiting greenhouse gas emissions by all nations of the world.

Introduction.  The world’s environmental and political leaders will convene the 17^th conference under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from November 28 to December 9, 2011 in Durban, South Africa. 194 parties (nations and the region of the European Union) are included in the UNFCCC.  The 16^th conference gathered one year ago in Cancun, Mexico to negotiate a framework to lower man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and to constrain the resulting global average temperature rise to less than 2 deg C (3.6 deg F) above the level that prevailed before the industrial revolution began. 

The Cancun conference addressed the following issues:

• efforts at mitigation of the increasing emission of greenhouse gases around the world (i.e., reducing the rate of such emissions);
• efforts at adaptation to the adverse effects, past and future, of global warming;
• reduction of emissions coming from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries;
• assuring transparency of knowledge and information concerning efforts at mitigation and adaptation by establishing standards for measuring and  reporting data, and verification of results; and
• establishing an international fund to support mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing and least developed countries.

The Cancun Agreements were the final product (text and press release; see the Cancun meeting  web site for additional documents) of the conference, and were approved by all the parties except one.  As such, they reflect affirmative commitments by all the parties going forward to objectives and concrete steps to be taken.

A signal feature of the Agreements is the explicit acknowledgement by all the participants that “climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet, and thus requires to be urgently addressed by all Parties”, and that they must strive to constrain the average global rise in temperature to 2º C (3.6º F) or less.  It states that “deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to [climate] science”, as documented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC), which was issued in 2007.  It thus established an upper limit for the average global temperature in order to prevent severe consequences from afflicting the planet. 

Commitments under the Cancun Agreements.  The following are among the commitments made in the Agreements.

Mitigation.  The developed, or already industrialized, countries (such as the U. S., Europe, and others) were encouraged to develop more ambitious targets for reducing man-made greenhouse gas emissions as recommended by the IPCC.  They are to report their inventories of greenhouse gas emissions every year, and to report on progress toward reducing emissions, as well as on financing and adaptation activities, every two years.

In order to promote and enable mitigation efforts by developing countries (such as China, India and others), they are to receive financial and technological support from the developed countries, while recognizing their objectives of economic development and reduction of poverty among their populations.  Developing countries are to publish reports on their progress toward reducing emissions every two years. 

Reduction of emissions due to deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) is a major undertaking in the Cancun Agreements.  Reversing deforestation and new planting of trees for restoring forests is a significant feature of the Agreements.

Adaptation.  Among other measures, the Agreements establish a Cancun Adaptation Framework, an organization that will oversee both the substance and the financing of projects that help least developed countries adapt to the adverse effects of global warming.   These include sea level rise, increasing temperatures, and ocean acidification, among others.

Transparency.  A major impediment to progress in addressing global warming at the level of a global conference had been a perceived or suspected lack of credibility when a particular nation reports its emissions, and its mitigation and adaptation activities.  The Cancun Agreements established formal mechanisms for assuring transparency in the measurement, reporting, and verification of activities in these areas.

Financing.  The Cancun Agreements established objectives for financing adaptation and mitigation efforts among poorer nations of the world.  A fast start financing round from industrialized countries was to achieve a committed level of $30 billion by 2012.  It further establishes a long-term goal of providing $100 billion/yr by 2020. 

Actions by Parties Since the Cancun Conference

Developed countries submitted emission reduction targets to the UNFCCC, which reported them in June 2011.  Goals from a selection of developed countries/regions for the year 2020 are included in the following table.

Country/Region	Reference year	Reduction goal, %	Comments
Australia	2000	25	Contingent on agreement by world’s nations to limit CO2 to 450 ppm; otherwise lower goals undertaken unilaterally
Canada	2005	17	Contingent on U. S. passing climate change legislation
European Union	1990	20	Reaffirmed commitment to limit global warming to 2ºC.  Confirmed effort to reduce emissions by 80-95% by 2050.
Japan	1990	25	Premised on international agreement for reduction by all major economies.
Russian Federation	1990	15-25	Conditioned on all major emitters honoring their emissions obligations, and allowance for effects of domestic forests.
U. S.	2005	17	Assumes passage of climate legislation.  Assumes other developed, and advanced developing countries, submit mitigation actions.

 

Developing countries undertook to provide an assessment of help, finances and technologies that the developed countries would provide in order to help them to break from “business as usual” (current economic activities in the absence of climate change plans), and permit progress in achieving reductions in the rates of emissions.  Developing countries also undertook to put in place rigorous emissions measuring, reporting and verification practices, also to be transmitted to the UNFCCC.

Developing countries, on a voluntary basis, submitted “nationally appropriate mitigation actions” planned for coming years to the UNFCCC.  Plans from only 45 countries were deposited as of 18 March 2011.  Interestingly, many countries with smaller economies enumerated detailed goals and steps, while countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases provided only brief, more generic, statements of goals.  A selection from among these larger economies is presented in the table below.

Country	Year for goal	Statement of goal
Brazil	2020	Expected emissions reduction of between 36.1 and 38.9 % below the level predicted with no actions taken.  Detailed listing of contributing actions provided.
China	2020	Voluntary measures to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP; emissions intensity) by 40–45% compared to 2005, increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15%, and to increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares (99 million acres).
India	2020	Voluntary efforts to reduce emissions intensity of its GDP by 20–25% compared with the 2005 level, excluding emissions from agriculture.
Indonesia	2020	Voluntary efforts to reduce emissions by 26% by, among others, lowering the deforestation rate, energy efficiency, developing low-emitting transport means and renewable energy sources.

Importantly, in the table above the goals expressed by China and India are given in terms of emissions intensity, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions needed to produce a unit of economic product.  While the goals of these nations may be to reduce their emissions intensities, they remain at liberty, by their statements of voluntary policies, to increase the absolute amount of their emissions.  These will increase as they expand their economies and strive to achieve higher standards of living for their people.  This feature is a crucial characteristic of the “firewall” between developed and developing countries, considered below in the section on Todd Stern’s remarks.

The Kyoto Protocol included a Clean Development Mechanism, whereby developed countries can contribute to their own reductions in emissions by establishing an emissions-reducing project in a developing country.  Included in this objective is to be an evaluation of carbon capture and storage as a means of preventing CO₂ produced from fossil fuels to enter the atmosphere; these developments are intended to be discussed at the Durban conference, and hopefully finalized.  The Cancun agreement also set forth objectives for putting in place policies on land use, land-use change and forestry, including establishing forestry baselines for future reference.  These and related Kyoto-derived objectives, enumerated in the Cancun agreement of 2010, are to be considered further at Durban.

Adaptation activities occurring during the year following Cancun are summarized here.

Financing was discussed in the November 5, 2011 issue of The Economist.  Although Cancun proposed establishing a Green Climate Fund, The Economist points to a report from the Climate Policy Initiative, which finds that climate funding is already flowing, currently at almost US$100 billion a year, with more than half coming from private sources and relatively little directly from governments.  Much of this funding was already under way prior to the Cancun Agreements.

Todd Stern, the Special Envoy for Climate Change in the U. S. State Department, gave a realistic view of current international climate negotiations in his Statement presented to the U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 25, 2011 (accessed Nov. 8, 2011).  He pointed out a glaring difficulty in UNFCCC negotiations, and in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 resulting from it, as a legacy paradigm enshrined since about 1992, namely, that these agreements established a “firewall” (Mr. Stern’s characterization) between developed and developing countries.  The firewall ensures that only developed countries be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while developing countries would be free to pursue development without being bound to lower their emissions.  Developing countries were not required to abide by Kyoto.  Most developed countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which set up mechanisms and goals to reduce emissions by the acceding parties from the date of entry into force, 2005, through 2012.  The United States did not ratify Kyoto, however, partly because of domestic objections to the distinction between nations that it established. 

Mr. Stern pointed out that the world has changed drastically since the early 1990s, such that the original distinctions no longer make sense.  As of 2009,        4 of the highest 10, and 9 of the highest 20 emitters of CO₂ resulting from burning fossil fuels were developing countries (including China).  China’s GDP has grown to be nearly 6 times larger than in 1992, its per capita GDP is more than 5 times larger, its CO₂ emissions are nearly 3 times larger and its per capita CO₂ emissions are 2.5 times larger.  In contrast, over this time economic growth and increases in emissions from developed countries were far more gradual (see below).

 

The Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban annual conferences are intended to negotiate an agreement to follow the imminent expiration of the Kyoto Protocol.  These negotiations have been fraught, however.  The policy of the U. S., according to Mr. Stern, is to overturn this historical paradigm, in recognition of the fact that, in the contemporary world, all nations are responsible for controlling climate change.  Most developing countries, including major emitters such as China and India, wish to preserve the firewall by continuing to place the burden for reducing the absolute quantity of greenhouse gas emissions on developed countries.  That is, they seek to negotiate a second stage of the Kyoto Protocol that preserves its developed/developing country distinction.  Most of the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the U. S., oppose this unrealistic policy.

Developing countries have espoused, during the course of negotiations, a policy of reducing their emissions intensities, as noted above.  Mr. Stern noted, however, that even while developing countries progress to using energy more efficiently during their development, they still continue to increase the absolute quantity of their emissions as their economies grow.  In Mr. Stern’s view, extending the Kyoto Protocol is “unworkable”.  The parties should not confront the global climate challenge by “focusing only on developed countries when developing countries already account for around 55% of global emissions and will account for 65% by 2030”.  He pointed out that China is the world’s second largest economy, has grown to become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and is predicted to have emissions about 90% larger than the U.S. by 2020.

Mr. Stern outlined a new policy developed by the U. S. under President Obama.  First, the U. S. seeks to have all nations of the UNFCCC make commitments to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.  Second, the U. S. recognizes that nations are more willing to accept policies developed internally, according to their own circumstances and national objectives, rather than those imposed on them from an external framework.  This builds on an understanding that all nations, both developed and developing, are more likely to accept policies that they themselves initiate.

CO₂ Emissions Rate Continues to Climb.  According to a report by Reuters dated June 8, 2011 (accessed November 10, 2011), China’s CO₂ emissions rate was 10.4% higher in 2010 than in the previous year, based on data from the oil company BP.  The company also reported that emissions from the U. S. rose by 4.1%, and that globally overall, the emissions rate increased by 5.8%.  The International Energy Agency reported a 5.9% annual increase for 2010, according to Reuters.  These global rates are corroborated by a separate report, “Long-Term Trend In Global CO₂ Emissions, 2011 report”, authored by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (accessed November 8, 2011).  This report states that the emissions rate in China and India increased by 10% and 9%, respectively, in 2010.  It also finds that industrialized countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol have reduced CO₂ emissions by more than 7.5% since 1990, so that they should fulfill the Protocol’s objective of a 5.2% reduction by 2012, when it ends.

Global Warming Continues.  Excessive greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are understood to cause an increase in long-term global average temperatures.  The U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 2010 tied with 2005 as being the hottest year on record (accessed November 10, 2011).  This assessment was confirmed by the U. S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (accessed November 10, 2011).  In addition, 2010 had the highest recorded global average amount of precipitation.

Projected Future Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The U. S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) issued its report, International Energy Outlook 2011  (designated IEO 2011 here), on Sept. 19, 2011 (for a summary see this post.  The report presents historical worldwide energy usage data to 2008 and forecasts worldwide energy usage from 2008 through 2035.  IEO 2011 frequently divides the world into countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD; United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, most European countries, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand; here considered developed), and non-OECD countries, including China, India, Russia, Brazil, the Middle East and Africa (here considered developing).

IEO 2011 envisions an overall increase of 53% in yearly world energy usage by 2035 in the absence of any policies limiting use of fossil fuels, based on the amount used in 2008 (see Figure 1), with half of that increase originating in China and India.  Their annual energy

Annual usage of energy in all forms for certain years between 1990 and 2035.  The horizontal spacing of the bars is not linear; the interval at the left is 10 years, while the interval after 2015 is every 5 years. 

Source: U. S. EIA International Energy Outlook 2011 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2011).pdf

use more than doubles in this period.  Predicted energy consumption by non-OECD countries increases by 85%, whereas OECD nations use only 18% more energy in this time period.

The energy use shown in Figure 1, being mostly derived from fossil fuels, necessarily produces emissions of CO₂ into the atmosphere when the fuels are burned.  The actual and predicted emissions of CO₂ before and after 2008, respectively, are shown in Figure 2.  Most of the growth in emissions comes from developing countries, for which emissions

Worldwide emissions of CO₂ for (left panel, Figure 110) developed (OECD) and developing (Non-OECD) nations, and by fossil fuel used (Liquids is primarily petroleum and its products).  The line at 2008 separates actual data (on the left) and predicted emissions (on the right) assuming no policies limiting emissions are in place.

Source: U. S. EIA International Energy Outlook 2011 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2011).pdf

increase by 73% by 2035 over the 2008 level of emissions (Figure 2, left panel).  For developed countries, this increase is only 6%.  Worldwide, the emissions from coal increase the greatest, from 39% of the total in 1990, to 43% of the total in 2008, and 45% of the total in 2035.  Much of this arises from China, which is undertaking to install new coal-fired power plants over this time (see the 12^th Five Year Plan), and India.

Joeri Rogelj and coworkers, in an article published in Nature Climate Change  Vol.1, pp. 413–418 Year (2011), warned of the high likelihood that the limits on emissions of CO₂ required to keep the long-term global average temperature within the 2ºC limit confirmed in the Cancun Agreements might not be attained, but that this limit would be exceeded.  These authors re-examined the results of many model projections of greenhouse gas emissions, using a risk-based analysis.  They concluded that of those models, the ones showing a greater than 66% likelihood for conforming to this temperature limit required emissions to peak between 2010 and 2020, and to fall significantly after that.  They conclude “Without a firm commitment to put in place the mechanisms to enable an early global emissions peak followed by steep reductions thereafter [including by several major emitters], there are significant risks that the 2 °C target, endorsed by so many nations, is already slipping out of reach.”

Conclusion.  The world’s nations continue to emit CO₂ by burning fossil fuels to fulfill their energy needs.  Emissions in future years are predicted to continue increasing by about 2% per year in the absence of policies which would limit burning of fossil fuels and lower the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.  Among developed countries, the European Union in fact has embarked on a region-wide program to lower emissions drastically by 2050.  The U. S. has no integrated national policy, but California and some regional climate initiatives have undertaken to reduce their emissions.  President Obama’s administration additionally is implementing policies to make petroleum- and natural gas-fueled transportation more efficient. 

In contrast, two of the main developing countries, China and India, are not implementing policies to reduce the absolute amount of greenhouse gases they emit.  At best, they have goals of lowering the emissions intensity of economic production. 

This situation illustrates the persistence of the legacy paradigm identified by U. S. Special Envoy Todd Stern, of the firewall concerning greenhouse gas emissions separating developed from developing countries.  This fundamental difference of opinion remains as perhaps the most important issue to be resolved at a global level, as the UNFCCC has convened its Conferences of the Parties over the years.  The parties of the UNFCCC have to come together to limit worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, ultimately to near zero.  Let us hope that progress toward this objective can be made at the Durban Conference.

© 2011 Henry Auer