The latest global
carbon budget numbers are just out, and they make interesting, if slightly depressing, reading.
But
carbon budget numbers since quoted by other sources do not all follow this IPCC bottom - line figure.
Not exact matches
The CCC has now revised the initial assertion that meeting
carbon budgets need not increase the
number of households in fuel poverty.
Outlining a
number of measures, Gordon Brown claimed
Budget 2007 would result in 16 million tonnes of
carbon reductions.
While they have generally reinforced the conclusion of Millar and colleagues that the IPCC's models have underestimated the remaining
carbon budget, sizable differences between the studies still remain and it is hard to pin down a precise
number to use as the remaining allowable emissions.
A
number of different studies have tried to improve
carbon budget estimates from ESMs by matching them more closely to observations of emissions and warming that have actually occurred up to the present day.
IAM - based
carbon budgets differ from those that come from ESMs in a
number of ways.
Now let's consider these new
numbers from a recent permafrost study released earlier this month in the context of IPCC's «
carbon budget...»
Given the consequent threat to life for very large
numbers of people of failing to respect the 2.0 C threshold, I've yet to see the case for treating those seriously proposing a
carbon budget giving a mere 66 % chance of doing so with anything like respect.
But the human «
carbon budget» is now official, for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just cast it into some pretty solid
numbers.
This
number, that is the
number of tons of CO2 emissions that can be emitted before atmospheric concentrations exceed levels that will cause dangerous climate change, is what is meant by a
carbon budget.
If the total
carbon budget to give the world a 66 % chance of keeping warming below 2 °C is 270 gigatons
carbon (GtC), then because the US population is 5 % of world population, a case can be made that the United States
carbon budget must be below 13.5 GtC even before this
number is adjusted on the grounds of fairness or equity that takes into account the US's world leading share of historical emissions.
In any event the US INDC, as well as all INDCs, should be expressed as a total
number of
carbon tons rather than as a percent reduction by a specific year given that a
carbon budget requires nations to fairly allocate the remaining
carbon budget necessary to limit warming to 2 °C.
For more than a decade, researchers have struggled and failed to balance global
carbon budgets, which must balance
carbon emissions to the atmosphere from fossil fuels (6.3 Pg per year;
numbers here from Skee Houghton at Woods Hole Research Center) and land use change (2.2 Pg; deforestation, agriculture etc.) with
carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere (3.2 Pg) and the
carbon sinks taking
carbon out of the atmosphere, especially
carbon dioxide dissolving in Ocean surface waters (2.4 Pg).
The concept of applying a
carbon budget and the impact on the energy sector has since been applied by a
number of major institutions, including the IEA, Citi, S&P,
The ethical basis for why national INDCs should specify; (a) the
number of tons of ghg emissions that will be reduced by implementation of the INDC by a specific date, (b) the warming limit and associated
carbon budget that the nation's INDC is seeking to achieve in cooperation with other nations, (c) the equity principles assumed by the nation in determining the fairness of its INDC, and (d) for Annex 1 nations, emissions reductions that will be achieved by the INDC from 1990, a common baseline year.
For example, analyses of remaining
carbon budgets often use ESM - derived
numbers from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) most recent assessment report, and calculate remaining
budgets using observed cumulative emissions to date.