Category: News

The key condition the Government set on its highly conditional 25%
emissions reduction target was the achievement of a global agreement to
stabilise atmospheric carbon at 450 parts per million by 2050. Such an
ambitious goal would be welcome, but would require far stronger action
from Australia and it would mean very steep emissions reductions from
all countries.

The first line of the Prime Minister’s press release from May 4 reads:

‘The Rudd Government has today committed to reduce Australia’s carbon
pollution by 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees
to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450
parts per million or lower by mid century.’

As Minister Wong acknowledged in Estimates hearings today, however, the
Government’s position, backed up by Professor Garnaut’s modelling, is
for stabilisation at 450ppm by 2140, not 2050. This would put the world
on a much slower and more dangerous reduction trajectory.

“The Prime Minister’s target was wrong by 90 years,” Senator Brown said.

“This mistake changes the whole effect and meaning of the Government’s
position. It moves it from an ambitious global goal to a weak one.

“The Minister’s office and the Department of Climate Change have known
about this mistake since at least Tuesday, when it was revealed by the
ANU’s Andrew Macintosh.

“The Minister told the Committee she would find out whether the Prime
Minister has at any time been informed of this mistake.

“Minister Wong and her department said that no-one in the business of
environment groups backing the Government had asked about the vital
error. It is extraordinary that the mistake was not picked up.”

Tim Hollo
Media Adviser
Senator Christine Milne | Australian Greens Deputy Leader and Climate
Change Spokesperson
Suite SG-112 Parliament House, Canberra ACT | P: 02 6277 3588 | M: 0437
587 562
http://www.christinemilne.org.au/| www.GreensMPs.org.au
<http://www.greensmps.org.au/>

The Gulf Stream begins upstream of Cape Hatteras, where the Florida Current ceases to follow the continental shelf. The position of the Stream as it leaves the coast changes throughout the year. In the fall, it shifts north, while in the winter and early spring it shifts south (Auer 1987; Kelly and Gille 1990; Frankignoul et al. 2001). Compared with the width of the current (about 100-200 km), the range of this variation (30-40 km) is relatively small (Hogg and Johns 1995). However, recent studies by Mariano et al. (2002) suggests that the meridional range of the annual variation in stream path may be closer to 100 km. Other characteristics of the current are more variable. Significant changes in its transport, meandering, and structure can be observed through many time scales as it travels northeast.

The transport of the Gulf Stream nearly doubles downstream of Cape Hatteras (Knauss 1969; Hall and Fofonoff 1993; Hendry 1988; Leaman et al. 1989) at a rate of 8 Sv every 100 km (Knauss 1969; Johns et al. 1995). It appears that the downstream increase in transport between Cape Hatteras and 55°W is mostly due to increased velocities in the deep waters of the Gulf Stream (Johns et al. 1995). This increase in velocity is thought to be associated with deep recirculation cells found north and south of the current (Hall and Fofonoff 1993). Examples of these recirculations include small recirculations east of the Bahamas (Olson et al. 1984; Lee et al. 1990), the Worthington Gyre south of the Gulf Stream between 55° and 75°W (Worthington 1976), and the Northern Recirculation Gyre north of the Gulf Stream (Hogg et al. 1986). Recent studies suggest that the recirculations steadily increase the transport in the Gulf Stream from 30 Sv in the Florida Current to a maximum of 150 Sv at 55°W (Hendry 1982; Hogg 1992; Hogg and Johns 1995).

The Gulf Stream transport varies not only in space, but also in time. According to Geosat altimetry results, the current transports a maximum amount of water in the fall and a minimum in the spring, in phase with the north-south shifts of the its position (Kelly and Gille 1990; Zlotnicki 1991; Kelly 1991; Hogg and Johns 1995). Rossby and Rago (1985) and Fu et al. (1987) obtained similar results when they looked at sea level differences across the Stream. All of these studies found that the Gulf Stream has a marked seasonal variability, with peak-to-peak amplitude in sea surface height of 10-15 cm. The fluctuation is mostly confined to the upper 200-300 m of the water column and is a result of seasonal heating and expansion of the surface waters (Hogg and Johns 1995). Height differences this small, if assumed to decay linearly to zero at 300 m, would only result in annual transport fluctuations of about 1.5 Sv (Hogg and Johns 1995).

Interestingly, the variations in transport of the deep waters in the current appear to be almost opposite in phase to the surface waters, and their magnitude is more significant (Hogg and Johns 1995). As Worthington (1976) suggested, the maximum transport occurs in the spring, and the amplitude of the annual cycle is as large as 5-8.5 Sv (Manning and Watts 1989; Sato and Rossby 1992; Hogg and Johns 1995). The mechanism Worthington proposed was extensive convection south of the Gulf Stream in winter due to the atmospheric cooling of surface waters. This causes the thermocline to deepen and the baroclinic transport to increase (Fu et al. 1987). Although his idea has been controversial, alternate hypotheses have not adequately explained observations (Hogg and Johns 1995).

Like transport, the meandering of the Gulf Stream intensifies downstream of Cape Hatteras, reaching a maximum near 65°W. Meanders often pinch off from the current to form Gulf Stream rings. On average, the Stream sheds 22 warm-core rings and 35 cold-core rings per year (Hogg and Johns 1995).

Once it reaches the Grand Banks, the structure of the Gulf Stream changes from a single, meandering front to multiple, branching fronts (Krauss 1986; Johns et al. 1995). Early oceanographic papers on the North Atlantic (Iselin 1936; Fuglister 1951a, 1951b; Sverdrup et al. 1942) mention the branching, but due to sparse data in this area, the branch points were considered largely theoretical until confirmed by Mann (1967). Mann (1967) showed two branches at 38°30;N 44°W. One branch curves north along the continental slope, eventually turning east between 50° and 52°N. This branch is called the North Atlantic Current and was well known even in Iselin’s time. The other branch flows southeastward towards the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and is called the Azores Current. This southern branch is most likely synonymous with Iselin’s “Atlantic Current” and was formally named the Azores Current in a paper by Gould (1985).

The region of the Gulf Stream’s branch point is highly dynamic and subject to rapid change. The high degree of mesoscale activity, along with rapid changes in the major surface currents, make this a very difficult region to study. Part of this variability arises from the high amount of eddy activity. Eddy kinetic energy along both the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current is at peak values here (Richardson 1983). There is also the presence of elongated, high-pressure cells along the offshore side of the North Atlantic Current (Worthington 1976; Clarke et al. 1980; Baranov and Ginkul 1984; Krauss et al. 1987). These pressure cells may be linked to outbursts of Labrador Current water from the Grand Banks (Krauss et al. 1987) that lead to extensive mixing at the end of the Gulf Stream.

 

 

More worryingly, plans for low-carbon technology give the expansion of high-carbon coal power pride of place. The promotional rhetoric is of Carbon Capture and Storage [CCS background guide], yet those from the power sector are blunt about its shortcomings. “One of the plants we are building is CCS ready, although to be quite frank no one really knows what that is at the moment,” claimed Steve Lennon, managing director of South Africa’s Eskom.

 

The underlying problem is that business adjusts the problem of climate change to neoliberal economics, which judges value according to financial cost rather than environmental sustainability or social justice. This manifests itself in a promise to massively expand carbon markets [emissions trading background guide]. The idea is that governments give out a limited number of permits to pollute; the scarcity of these permits should encourage their price to rise; and the resulting additional cost to industry and power producers should encourage them to pollute less.

 

Jos Delbeke, deputy director-general for the environment at the European commission, was in Copenhagen claiming that this is how the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is now working. Yet his department’s own data for 2008 shows more international “offset” credits circulating than the level of claimed reductions, while lobbying pressure has resulted in a twin-track system from which every business wins.

 

On one side, heavy industry like the steel sector has more credits than would be needed to reduce its emissions, so it sells them. Delbeke shared a panel on carbon markets with a representative of ArcelorMittal, which alone gained an estimated subsidy of more than €1bn between 2005 and 2008 by this means.

 

On the other side, power companies pay less for pollution permits than the cost they pass on to consumers, generating windfall profits that could reach up to around €70bn by 2012. The circulation of these permits does nothing to help new investment in renewables.

 

 

Other measures to avoid business obligations displace the problem of tackling climate change on to developing countries. The Summit’s final Copenhagen Call talks of a crucial role for forest protection in developing countries, and that such measures should represent around half of the action needed to limit climate change by 2020.

 

These figures are taken directly from Project Catalyst, an initiative bringing together “climate negotiatiors, senior government officials… and business executives”, whose presentation (marked confidential) more straightforwardly emphasises the “the size of the prize for business”. It also speaks of the opportunities for “companies in forest management, pulp and paper, or construction” to access a “€20-30bn value chain” in developing countries.

 

Strikingly similar assumptions have found their way into negotiating texts on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), which will be discussed when UN climate negotiations resume in Bonn next week. Yet the whole idea that deforestation can be stopped by simply putting a price on forests is flawed, with forest communities and indigenous peoples warning that it will encourage further land grabs by large companies. They point to evidence that the real drivers of deforestation are the major construction, mining, logging and plantation developments whose owners stand to be rewarded by REDD funds.

 

These are the voices that the world should be listening to as it seeks to tackle climate change. Even the self-proclaimed “progressives” of big business seem to be putting profit margins above environmental need. Without a more fundamental re-examination, to paraphrase one panellist, they look set to remain on the back end of a horse that is galloping in the wrong direction.

 

• Oscar Reyes is a researcher with Carbon Trade Watch, a project of the Transnational Institute, and environment editor of Red Pepper magazine.