hi
here is the link :
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2010/12/15/CarbonBudgetsReportdec14final.pdf
I haven't found it on the FoE website though and their office is now closed.
let me know if you need the pdf.
best wishes,
Emily.
On 15/12/2010 16:37, Emily wrote:
Hi,
please read the last sentence in particular: FoE now join WWF in
accepting the possible need for geo-engineering. I agree with this
analysis.
I am trying to track down a link tot he report - if you have one,
please circulate.
manyt hanks and Best wishes,
Emily.
RECKLESS GAMBLERS
key conclusions..
• Recent climate science and risk analysis
show that there is now a
very small remaining safe level of
greenhouse gas emissions compatible
with preventing dangerous climate
change.
• A 2 degrees temperature rise can
no longer be considered “safe”; even
1.5 degrees carries with it major risks.
• Even a Global Carbon Budget of
1100 Gigatonnes of CO 2 equivalent
from now to 2050, which would
give a 75% chance of exceeding
1.5 degrees, and a 30% chance of
exceeding 2 degrees, would require
unprecedented emissions reductions
which go far beyond those currently
contemplated by politicians. Reducing
risks further would require even
tougher action.
• If dangerous climate change is to
be averted it will require immediate
and significant changes to how we
fuel our economies in virtually all
countries, it will require systemic
action across all sectors of the
economies of all countries.
• As leaders of countries with large
historical and current emissions,
politicians in developed countries must
shoulder the blame for increasing
the risk of dangerous climate
change. They will need to make deep
emissions reductions and provide
hundreds of billions of dollars for
developing countries to grow without
carbon-intensive energy.
• Living within the small remaining
global carbon budget, if shared out
on an equal per capita basis between
2010 and 2050, would require
reductions in emissions in developed
countries of around 8-15 per cent
per annum, immediate emissions
reductions in some developing
countries, an early peak and decline
in emissions in others, and some
countries would be able to continue
to increase emissions from their very
low baseline. These are just illustrative
figures, not prescriptions but if one
group of countries emits more than
these amounts, it would require
corresponding reductions in what
other countries emit and the scope for
this is now very limited. Achieving cuts
in developing countries will require
substantial financial and technology
transfers from developed countries.
• Urgent research and debate needs
to be carried out - alongside urgent
action to reduce emissions - to identify
exactly how to share out the remaining
global carbon budget and whether
these reductions are technically
possible and, if not, whether
approaches using negative emissions
or even geo-engineering are possible
or acceptable.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
