Varun Sivaram

Energy, Security, and Climate

CFR experts examine the science and foreign policy surrounding climate change, energy, and nuclear security.

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


Could Aggressive Climate Targets Backfire?

by Michael Levi
November 2, 2011

For the past several years, international climate diplomacy has been focused on cutting greenhouse gas emissions deeply enough to keep global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees centigrade.  In private, many experts and diplomats have acknowledged that that goal might be unrealistic. In public, though, pretty much everyone presented a more optimistic face.

At the Singapore Energy Summit earlier this week, I was struck by how many people, experts and officials alike, were much more willing to publically challenge the viability of the two-degree target than they have been in the past. Nobuo Tanaka, until recently the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), made a particularly arresting claim: with the targets we’ve been talking about increasingly looking implausible, it is time to shift more of our efforts away from mitigation (reducing emissions) and toward adaptation to climate change.

This sort of statement troubles me. There is no reason to shift sharply away from efforts to cut emissions simply because some of the most ambitious goals for doing so may be unachievable. The differences between two, four, and six degrees of warming – and even worse possibilities – are stark. Indeed, even if one (correctly) thinks that adaptation efforts are essential, it should also be clear that mitigation makes those efforts more manageable.

So why did Tanaka say what he did? I worry that this is part of the fallout from a campaign for climate action that has tried to motivate people by presenting all or nothing choices. Anyone involved in climate policy has seen the presentation a thousand times: someone shows charts of what world temperatures, sea levels, and so on would look like with unabated greenhouse gas emissions; then they show similar charts for a world where we keep global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees. Think that the former case is too ugly to contemplate? (It is.) Think that the latter one looks a heck of a lot better? (It does.) Then you need to adopt the program of massive emissions cuts that’s necessary to realize it.

That’s fine if it succeeds in rallying the world to those big emissions cuts. But it risks sending some people a second, incorrect, message: if you think that it’s impossible to achieve the “good” outcome, you better resign yourself to the awful one.

Of course, in reality, there’s a large middle ground that sees substantial emissions cuts, nonetheless fails to keep temperature rises to two degrees, but still keeps the world well away from the worst-case outcomes. (One can debate whether it’s actually possible to stabilize at certain intermediate levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, given the possibility of large carbon-cycle feedbacks, but that’s a largely separable issue.) And the sorts of policies best suited to achieving these intermediate outcomes may not just be “failed” versions of those policies that one might pursue in order to reach the more ambitious ones. There are policy steps that may seem inadequate – even useless – when measured against the toughest targets, but that suddenly look quite useful when the goals are more modest.

This isn’t a brief for low ambition, but it is a big caution. By presenting climate policy as an all-or-nothing choice, advocates of strong climate action seem to believe they’ll maximize their odds of absolute success.  That may be true, but it increasingly looks like they’re also maximizing their odds of absolute failure.



Post a Comment 4 Comments

  • Posted by ANDY APPAN

    CER 15 BnT/Yr INV 700 Bn$ RETURN 5400 Bn$/Yr
    1/3 FUEL /HP by ANDY TECH

  • Posted by sustainablejohn

    Yes I knew IEA would come out and say 2C is unfeasible this year, but I didn’t think they would be so forthright about the outright downgrade for mitigation. Thanks for your level-headed perspective.

  • Posted by abarrelfull

    I am sure it is a case of backfiring.

    We have been fed a diet of catastrophy for years, with every major event blamed on climate change, whether plausible or not. The propaganda was so over the top, with every hot spell, storm and change in weather reason enough for more indoctrination, that a single cold winter in the Northern Hemisphere led to millions of people doubting the entire global warming theory.

    On top of that, the efforts to reduce emissions have been entire captured by lobby groups, such that vast sums of money are spent on corn ethanol or solar power in temperate climates, which are gradually being recognised for the con tricks that they are. When governments everywhere are forced to tighten belts, such waste hurts.

    The environmental movement turned global warming into an all or nothing religion, with only their prefered penance as a solution. They largely resisted questioning or alternative approaches, and in some cases indulged in subterfuge. Now the public is sceptical. If we have limited the subject to scientific inquiry and discussion that would not be a problem. Scepticism is a healthy mindset. However in matters of religion, doubt over a small area of doctrine, can easily led to athiesm, and a doubting public will not be willing to pay the cost of emissions reductions.

  • Posted by David B. Benson

    Rain amounts, i.e., flash floods and so on, will continue to increase approximately exponentially with increases in temperature. Prolonged droughts are also predicted to increase. Both make it ever harder to grow food.

    I suggest, rather strongly, rapid deployment of low carbon technologies.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required