The 2 Degree C Target

OK so just a recap of my last (serious) post:

• Many climate change impacts can be considered from an acceptability threshold” perspective. However, it is not possible to draw a single line in the sand that best deals with all these impacts.
• Even more problematic are the climate change impacts that do not conform well to threshold thinking. Where impacts ramp up (in many cases linearly), determining what qualifies as unacceptable becomes a subjective and ethics heavy task.

The more I read on the topic of dangerous climate change, the more my scepticism of the concept of ‘dangerous climate change thresholds’ seems justified.

I think this quote from Mahoney (2013) sums up my opinion on avoidable climate change targets well:

‘a stale variable which offers an illusion of control and a facade of simplicity’

...................................................................................................................................................................

The 2 Degree C Target:

So drawing this all back towards the overall aim of this blog, why do I think this is concerning for making stabilisation scenarios achievable? One way to answer this question is to look at the 2 degrees of warming target.

A bit of context:

Jordan et al. (2013) put forward that the target was first developed in response to criticism of the vagueness of UNFCCC’s Article 2 statement:

‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’

The figure was designed to add substance to the statement and motivate action to achieving this goal (Jordan et al., 2013). The 2 degrees C of warming was designed as a ‘meta-target’ and ‘boundary object’ (Randalls,2010) connecting the actions of policy makers with the scientific consensus that:

‘Deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to the science’ (this is a direct statement from the Cancun Agreements).

The target was essentially a clear deadline, intended to draw policy makers and the public’s attention towards long-term environmental goals.

It really is pretty basic behavioral stuff. Imagine you have been set two pieces of work, one with an exact deadline and the other requiring only that it be handed in at some point. Which one would you prioritise doing? Well, unless you defy behavioral theory, odds are you would forget about the second piece of work and instead focus upon the one with a certain deadline (Schneider et al., 2002). This is essentially the idea of short-shortsightedness in the face of uncertainty (the idea that we care more about things and events that are immediately relevant to us and more certain to occur).

So then, the target was essentially an attempt to motivate and rally policy makers and the public behind a common meta-target. And up until recently that was what it was doing.

The 2 degree C warming target gained much more political momentum than article 2 on its own. Jordon et al. (2013) point out that the goal achieved a ‘near totemic status’, especially within the EU. There have even been attempts to legally bind policy around this target (for example at the  Durban Platform).

Recent challenges to the 2 degree target

However, as the target gained status and legal traction, it quite rightly came under more intense scrutiny; and looking back at the criticism I raised in my last blog, this scrutiny highlighted some pretty big flaws.

Despite being considered as a boundary object by some between scientific research and policy, the target was increasingly recognised for what it was; a political construct (Geden, 2013)

 Geden (2013) sums it up well:

“Scientific research on climate change has reported numerous indications that 2°C could be an advisable guideline, but has not produced clear evidence that this precise figure is imperative”. A much smaller and larger warming target would be just as justifiable.

As politicians have realised this, the target has increasingly lost some of its power and purpose. For example, in 2012 US Climate Envoy Todd Stern called for the target’s removal from climate change talks (Jordon et al., 2013) 

Todd Stern adresssing the U.N in Copenhagen Getty Images