BINGO! And some basic but complex science (COP 14)

02 Dec 2008 – Geoff Lye

I have decided to join the BINGO daily 9am briefing and review. If you are not familiar with the COP (Conference of the Parties) acronyms, read my Bali blogs. BINGO is the Business NGO group (BUNGO, surely?). It is organized each year by a band of International Chambers of Commerce executives and members. Given my accreditation through Environmental Change Institute (ECI) at Oxford, I am technically a RINGO (Research and Independent NGOs) and feel happy to be so defined, though JOHN or PAUL would be even better. Incidentally, each day’s BINGO meeting takes place in the Wild Sheep room (absolutely true – do the organizers know something?).

Tuesday’s BINGO meeting reviewed the opening day. The ICC team had a somewhat different take from mine, with a sense that the speeches by the Polish and Dutch PMs were positive and motivating rather than, as I had felt, predictable and uninspiring. It is true that they each made the case that the economic downturn should not distract or delay, and that Donald Tusk the Polish PM called for ‘climate solidarity’ in the spirit of the movement which broke Soviet totalitarianism. Whatever the views of the morning session, it was agreed by all that the positive mood evaporated later in the day as the process reverted to type, and narrow, vested interest emerged again.

At an event later in the day – which was a summary and update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)‘s 2007 report by contributing authors – I was reminded of the recurring feeling I experienced at Bali. Namely, that in the same place and in the same event there appear to be so many parallel universes. The UN’s formal process is bogged down in short sighted and often self-serving politics while the side events show so clearly and passionately what needs to be done and what can be done – if only the global political will could be found.

I spoke to one of the IPCC authors (Diana Urge-Vorsatz) after the event. She had highlighted the massive opportunities to reduce GHGs in the building sector. In particular, she noted that about 30% of the global GHG reductions we need to achieve by 2030 can be delivered through improving new and existing building stock – all with positive economic returns (in other words, more will be saved than is spent). She shared examples which were not in the report including the retro fit of a Hungarian apartment block where savings of over 90% of annual space heating (see http://solanova.eu/) have been achieved. I asked her why the IPCC’s compelling environmental and economic arguments were failing to deliver substantive policy or market driven responses. She declared herself a pessimist on climate but felt that really positive policy developments were in hand and would deliver. I suggested that, in spite of my innate optimism, the theoretical possibility offered in the report is in practice wishful thinking given the lack of political will. This Diana was almost as impressive as ECI’s own Diana (Liverman), but, reader, where would you place your money?

I also spoke to Ralph Sims, another lead IPCC scientist and author, on the significance of stabilising at 450 ppm of CO2 as opposed to CO2e (the IPCC’s reference standard); I raised this in light of views of some experts in Oxford that while the current level of CO2e is approximately 50 ppm higher than CO2, non-CO2 activities in the atmosphere include not only additional GHGs which will tend to accelerate warming, but also other pollutants including aerosols and particulates from smoke which have a roughly equal cooling effect. He agreed with the Oxford assessment, but pointed out that the intent to drive down the emissions of the cooling pollutants actually exposed us progressively more over time to the additional warming potential of the non-CO2 GHGs.

Now that I finally understand this point, I am reassured in the position I have taken with business clients that while the ‘headspace’ left for us to achieve stabilisation from a warming point of view looks superficially the same in additional ppm – whether we set CO2 or CO2e as the 450 ppm target – we could only justify this if we support sustaining or increasing the levels of non GHG pollutants. Surely not a sustainable option! In his talk, Ralph Sims also highlighted that stabilising at 450 ppm of CO2e carries a 50% chance of overshooting the 2°C which is more or less universally set as the point beyond which we are at risk of dangerous climate change. He closed his speech with ‘We have the technologies, but we do not have the time.’ The (science) lesson endeth here.