TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Beyond “1990”

Published 01st December 2009 - 4 comments - 1015 views -

My colleagues at Sandbag have developed this rather neat Target Calculator to help non-statisticians understand politicians' emissions promises. All you do is choose a country, put in the emissions reduction target, and then the table and graph will show you how close various countries are to hitting their targets. So the figures below show the EU's progress on emissions and that when it talks about a harsher 30% cut in emissions relative to 1990, it actually means a less-impressive-sounding 22.7% reduction relative to 2007.

Sandbag target converter

In some places, the calculator highlights just how little ambition there is in many countries' aspirations. For example, in the UK, the calculator shows if we individually were to stick with the European target of 20% compared to 1990 levels, we'd really only need to further reduce our emissions by 3.3% compared to 2007.

Not much of a stretch really. 

Category: UN Climate Change Conference 2009, | Tags: copenhagen, copenhagen, copenhagen, copenhagen,



Comments

Nanne Zwagerman on 01st December 2009:

There are a number of sides to this.

- the EU’s 20% goal is indeed not ambitious, we’ll make that just by attaining the efficiency and renewables targets we’ve also set
- for a 20% EU wide target, there will be ‘burden sharing’ meaning that the UK will do more (and Spain will do less)
- too many emissions are not included (the stuff we buy from China, and international emissions from shipping)
- It’s not all about reductions and baselines, ultimately we need to converge on per capita emissions—20% with regard to 1990 may mean a much larger reduction for Canada and the US than for the EU, but they also emit twice as much per head as we do now.

It’s unfortunate that in the international negotiations the debate on per capita emissions is absent and we’re only talking about baselines and targets. A ‘contraction and convergence’ scheme would be more just, but it’s restricted to academic and popular debate.

Eleanor Thompson on 01st December 2009:

I agree, there are definitely better ways we could be measuring this kind of reduction, and the EU’s concentration on 1990 as a baseline figure is a trick to enable it to include the massive natural drop in emissions caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union (a 10% reduction on 1990 levels in Belarus would actually mean a 45.3% increase on 2007). But as an indicator of what is actually being promised to us, I think this calculator really is a good way to strike through the figures and understand the commitments our politicians are making.

Nanne Zwagerman on 01st December 2009:

It’s a useful tool, and quick and easy. The EU’s concentration on 1990 (though I don’t know whether they’ve given up already) is partly due to the fact that it’s written down in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, it also serves the EU well.

Still, the debate we should be having is not on baselines, BAU scenarios and targets but on reduction of absolute emissions and convergence of per capita emissions.

Libby Anne Robinson on 08th December 2009:

Ooh, I’ve never seen a tool like this before and for a newbie like me, it illustrates the 1990 debate well; I really didn’t realise that the Soviet Union had such an effect.  Perhaps Gordon should have a look at this before he takes his flight to Copenhagen?

This article is archived. Comments are closed.