Are Emission Cuts a Ruse?

Is it all just a sham? Are these endless targets, solemn promises invariably honoured in the breach, really a means to steer the climate crisis narrative?  Have we been had?  I don't know but, after 26 years of earnest commitments, greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing.

Some critics think the UN framework agreement is a smokescreen for the major emitters to hide behind. Here's their argument (as I understand it) in a nutshell.

Vague promises to cut emissions X per cent by year Y is an exercise in herding cats. They are, however, a fine way to avoid another conversation about the "carbon budget." That's a can of worms the advanced, industrialized nations do not want opened.

Here's the thing. We know from much research how much atmospheric GHG loading will produce 1.5C or 2.0C or 4.0C of heating. It's just physics. If the world wants to arrest global warming so that it doesn't exceed 1.5C then we have an accurate idea of how many more gigatonnes of emissions we can add to the atmosphere.

Once we know our maximum allowable gigatonnage the next logical question is how that budget should be allocated among nations. That's a conversation we definitely do not want to have. It invites questions about fairness, equity. It lays bare the reality that the A-list nations are clearly responsible for most of the GHG emissions to date. We're the source of the problem that disproportionally falls on the shoulders of B-list and C-list countries.

A carbon budget approach carries a special sting for fossil fuel producers like Canada. Here's our problem. Following the Paris climate summit in 2015, the energy giants were sitting on reserves representing more than 2,400 gt of CO2. Yet to have a 1 in 3 chance of staying within the 1.5C limit we could burn just a small fraction of that, one sixth maybe. That meant 84 % of the world's known fossil fuel reserves had to be left in the ground - so that we could have a 1 in 3 shot at staying within 1.5C.

Not all fossil fuels are the same.  Some, such as coal and bitumen, are really dirty - high carbon, low value junk. Natural gas is better except a lot of it is lost to the atmosphere from leaks in handling, storage and distribution. Then there's the relatively clean, low-carbon or "sweet" oil of the Middle East.  In this mix bitumen ought to be a dead man walking. Our prime minister doesn't see it that way which is really about all you need to know about our prime minister and the climate crisis.

The carbon budget approach exposes the reality that not only are we the culprits but we're really not that keen on making things right by the poorer, most vulnerable nations. We've had the lion's share of emissions for a long time and we're planning on maintaining, in one way or another, that status quo. We need to hang onto every gigatonne we can get.  Sorry Third World but them's the breaks. You're on your way out anyway.  Transferring our wealth to you is pointless, at least from our perspective.

Carbon budgeting is a results-based system. Vague, squishy emission cuts are, well, they're targets that only loosely translate into discernible results.

So we'll stick with the emissions cuts option and devil take the hindmost (so long as that's not us).