Good enough tools for global warming policy making

We present a simple analysis of the global warming problem caused by the emissions of CO2 (a major greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. We provide quantitative tools which enable policymakers and interested citizens to explore the following issues central to the global warming problem. At what rate are we permitted to continue to emit CO2 after the global average atmospheric concentration has ‘stabilized’ at some chosen target level? The answer here provides the magnitude of the effort, measured by the necessary total reduction of today's global (annual) emissions rate to achieve stabilization. We shall see that stabilized emissions rates for all interesting stabilized concentration levels are much lower than the current emissions rate, but these small finite values are very important. Across how many years can we spread the total effort to reduce the annual CO2 emissions rate from its current high value to the above-mentioned low and stabilized target value? The answer here provides the time-scale of the total mitigation effort for any chosen atmospheric concentration target level. We confirm the common understanding that targets below a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration create great pressure to produce action immediately, while targets above double the pre-industrial level can tolerate longer periods of inaction. How much harder is the future mitigation effort, if we do not do our share of the job now? Is it a good idea to overshoot a stabilization target? The quantitative answers here provide the penalty of procrastination. For example, the mitigation task to avoid doubling the pre-industrial level is a problem that can be addressed gradually, over a period extending more than a century, if started immediately, but procrastination can turn the effort into a much more urgent task that extends over only a few decades. We also find that overshooting target levels is a bad idea. The quality of public discourse on this subject could be much enhanced if ball-park quantitative answers to these questions were more widely known.

[1]  John Harte,et al.  Consider a Spherical Cow: A course in environmental problem solving , 1985 .

[2]  U. Siegenthaler,et al.  Stable-Isotope Ratios and Concentration of CO2 in Air from Polar Ice Cores , 1988, Annals of Glaciology.

[3]  Tom M. L. Wigley,et al.  A simple inverse carbon cycle model , 1991 .

[4]  Fortunat Joos,et al.  Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle , 1992 .

[5]  J. Sarmiento,et al.  A perturbation simulation of CO2 uptake in an ocean general circulation model , 1992 .

[6]  P. Sands.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1992 .

[7]  Tom M. L. Wigley,et al.  Balancing the carbon budget. Implications for projections of future carbon dioxide concentration changes , 1993 .

[8]  W. Nordhaus.  Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change , 1994 .

[9]  Gary Shaffer,et al.  Biogeochemical cycling in the global ocean: 1. A new, analytical model with continuous vertical resolution and high‐latitude dynamics , 1995 .

[10]  J. Edmonds,et al.  Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations , 1996, Nature.

[11]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake , 1996 .

[12]  W. Nordhaus,et al.  Roll the DICE Again: Economic Models of Global Warming , 1999 .

[13]  David W. Keith,et al.  Climate Strategy with Co2 Capture from the Air , 2001 .

[14]  Scott Elliott,et al.  Compensation of atmospheric CO2 buildup through engineered chemical sinkage , 2001 .

[15]  David William Keith,et al.  Climate Strategy with Co2 Capture from the Air , 2006 .

[16]  B. O’Neill,et al.  Climate change impacts are sensitive to the concentration stabilization path. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  T. Wigley.  Choosing a Stabilization Target for CO2 , 2004 .

[18]  S Pacala,et al.  Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies , 2004, Science.

[19]  Scott C. Doney,et al.  Evaluation of ocean carbon cycle models with data‐based metrics , 2004 .

[20]  Makiko Sato,et al.  Greenhouse gas growth rates. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  R. Socolow,et al.  Can we bury global warming? , 2005, Scientific American.

[22]  R. Schnur,et al.  Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C , 2006 .

[23]  K. Lackner,et al.  No . 2 CAPTURING CARBON DIOXIDE DIRECTLY FROM THE ATMOSPHERE , 2006 .

[24]  Malte Meinshausen,et al.  What does a 2 degree C target mean for greenhouse gas concentrations? - A brief analysis based on multi-gas emission pathways and several climate sensitivity uncertainty estimates. Chapter 28 , 2006 .

[25]  Stephen W Pacala,et al.  A plan to keep carbon in check. , 2006, Scientific American.

[26]  N. Stern.  The Economics of Climate Change: Implications of Climate Change for Development , 2007 .

[27]  Human-Induced Climate Change: Overshoot pathways to CO2 stabilization in a multi-gas context , 2007 .

[28]  John M. Reilly,et al.  Human-induced climate change : an interdisciplinary assessment , 2007 .

[29]  Bryan K. Mignone,et al.  Atmospheric stabilization and the timing of carbon mitigation , 2008 .