Kevin Anderson

Delivering on 2C. Kevin Anderson. 

The Gordon Goodman Memorial Lecture.

Edinburgh. Oct 2018.

Beyond dangerous climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Jan. 2011.

This paper demonstrates how meeting the international community’s commitment to “hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius” demands emission reductions far beyond those suggested in the plethora of politically-palatable analysis informing governments. Relying on real rather than naïve modelled data the paper demonstrates how even a 50:50 chance of not exceeding 2°C requires emission reductions of over 7% p.a. – a conclusion made all the more demanding once equity-issues are considered. Put simply, if even a small emission space is assumed for the poorer (non-Annex 1) nations, there is virtually no space available for the wealthier (Annex 1) nations. The paper concludes that “dangerous climate change can only be avoided if economic growth is exchanged for a period of planned austerity within Annex 1 nations at the same time as there is a rapid transition away from fossil-fuelled development within non-Annex 1 nations.” Unfortunately, in 2011, and despite the evidence, such a conclusion is still beyond anything we are yet prepared to countenance.

Duality in climate science. Nature Geoscience. Oct. 2015.

Brief Abstract:
The commentary demonstrates the endemic bias prevalent amongst many of those developing emission scenarios to severely underplay the scale of the 2°C mitigation challenge. In several important respects the modelling community is self-censoring its research to conform to the dominant political and economic paradigm. Moreover, there is a widespread reluctance of many within the climate change community to speak out against unsupported assertions that an evolution of ‘business as usual’ is compatible with the IPCC’s 2°C carbon budgets. 

With specific reference to energy, this analysis concludes that even a slim chance of “keeping below” a 2°C rise, now demands a revolution in how we both consume and produce energy. Such a rapid and deep transition will have profound implications for the framing of contemporary society and is far removed from the rhetoric of green growth that increasingly dominates the climate change agenda.

On the duality of climate scientists:
… how integrated assessment models are hard-wired to deliver politically palatable outcomes

The value of science is undermined when we adopt questionable assumptions and fine-tune our analysis to conform to dominant political and economic sensibilities. The pervasive inclusion of speculative negative emission technologies to deliver politically palatable 2°C mitigation is but one such example. Society needs scientists to make transparent and reasoned assumptions, however uncomfortable the subsequent conclusions may be for the politics of the day.

What if ‘negative emission technologies’ (NETs) fail at scale: Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations. Alice Larkin, Jaise Kuriakose, Maria Sharmina, and Kevin Anderson. Climate Policy. Aug. 2017.

Abstract
A cumulative emissions approach is increasingly used to inform mitigation policy. However, there are different interpretations of what ‘2°C’ implies. Here it is argued that cost-optimisation models, commonly used to inform policy, typically underplay the urgency of 2°C mitigation. The alignment within many scenarios of optimistic assumptions on negative emissions technologies (NETs), with implausibly early peak emission dates and incremental short-term mitigation, delivers outcomes commensurate with 2°C commitments. In contrast, considering equity and socio-technical barriers to change, suggests a more challenging short-term agenda. To understand these different interpretations, short-term CO2 trends of the largest CO2 emitters, are assessed in relation to a constrained CO2 budget, coupled with a ‘what if’ assumption that negative emissions technologies fail at scale. The outcomes raise profound questions around high-level framings of mitigation policy. The paper concludes that applying even weak equity criteria, challenges the feasibility of maintaining a 50% chance of avoiding 2°C without urgent mitigation efforts in the short-term. This highlights a need for greater engagement with: (1) the equity dimension of the Paris Agreement, (2) the sensitivity of constrained carbon budgets to short-term trends and (3) the climate risks for society posed by an almost ubiquitous inclusion of NETs within 2°C scenarios.