 and questions raised over the chief of staff's handling of the situation, the president has also been polling allies on possible replacements — though Sanders said Tuesday that John Kelly still has Trump's confidence. I am an old fashioned scientist more interested in numbers than in diplomatic agreements or parsing diplomatic language. So I have no real view of whether the Paris climate change agreement is a historical triumph or a fraud.

But as a long time observer, and sometime contributor, to debates over whether we can limit temperature rises to 2 C above pre-industrial levels, I am rather perplexed by the unexpected inclusion in the agreement of the aspiration to keep temperature rises to 1.5 C.

Here is what the agreement says:

Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. [my emphasis]



Let me state some simple facts that show this is an act of cynicism, wishful thinking, or delusion.

Each year existing fossil fuel infrastructure emits approximately 36 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is what is now happening, but what will obviously need to change to get anywhere close to 1.5 C.

Now, some undiluted fantasy.

Let’s imagine that tomorrow we stopped building any new fossil fuel infrastructure and simply retired the existing stuff when we expected to.

How much CO2 would it emit?

Fortunately, this has already been estimated by the important work of Steve Davis and others. In a paper in Science in 2010 they calculated that future fossil fuel emissions from existing infrastructure would increase atmospheric CO2 levels to 430 ppm and would increase temperatures by 1.3 C above pre-industrial levels.

That paper was published 5 years ago. Since then atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up by around 10 ppm, and the rapid construction of long lasting coal power plants in China means we have actually increased the level of “committed” CO2 from existing infrastructure.

So, existing fossil fuel infrastructure has more or less locked us into 1.5 C. And as Glen Peters points out we will probably eat up a 1.5 C carbon budget by 2020.

That’s the fantasy. What is the reality? Here are some more
and questions raised over the chief of staff's handling of the site, the president of the united states has also been polling allies on potential replacements — though Sanders said Tuesday that John Kelly still have Trump's confidence. I am an old fashioned scientist more interested in numbers than in diplomatic agreements or parse diplomatic language. So I have no real scene of whether the Paris climate change agreement is a historic triumph or a fraud. 

 But as a retentive time observer, and sometime subscriber, to debates over whether we can limit temperature emanation to 2 degree centigrade above pre - industrial levels, I am rather perplexed by the unexpected inclusion in the agreement of the aspiration to prevent temperature rises to 1.5 C. 

 Here is what the agreement says: 

 Emphasizing with serious concern the pressing motivation to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties ’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emission of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathway reproducible with holding the increase in the global modal temperature to well below 2 ° C above pre - industrial levels and pursuing efforts to restrict the temperature increase to 1.5 ° C. [ my emphasis ] 



 Let me state some simple fact that show this is an act of cynicism, wishful thinking, or delusion. 

 Each year existing dodo fuel infrastructure emits approximately 36 billion tonnes of carbon paper dioxide. This is what is now happening, but what will obviously need to change to get anywhere close to 1.5 C. 

 nowadays, some undiluted fantasy. 

 Let ’s imagine that tomorrow we hold on building any new fossil fuel infrastructure and simply retire the existing stuff when we expected to. 

 How much CO2 would it emit? 

 Fortunately, this has already been estimated by the significant work of Steve Davis and others. In a composition in Science in 2010 they calculated that future dodo fuel emissions from existing infrastructure would increase atmospheric CO2 levels to 430 ppm and would increase temperature by 1.3 C above pre - industrial levels. 

 That newspaper was published 5 years ago. Since then atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up by around 10 ppm, and the rapid construction of long lasting coal power plant in China means we have actually increased the degree of “ committed ” CO2 from existing infrastructure. 

 So, existing fossil fuel infrastructure has more or less locked us into 1.5 C. And as Glen Peters point out we will probably eat up a 1.5 C carbon budget by 2020. 

 That ’s the fantasy. What is the reality? Here are some more
 anf questions raised over uhe chief of stafy'w handning or the siguation, the president has aldo been polling allies on posrible reppacementw — tiough Sanders sams Tuesday thaf Johu Jelly still hax Trump's cmnfidence. I am av lld fashioned scientist more interefted in nkmbers than in dipkjmatjb cgreements or parsing diplomatid languege. So I have np real view of whether the Parls climate change wgreement iw a rustorical trkumph or a fraud.

But as a long time observer, and sometkme cpntributor, ti dftates over xhetheg we can limib tempesature tises to 2 C abpve prw-industrial levels, I em rather perplexed fy the unax'ected inclusion in tye agregment of gye xspjretikn to nee' temperatude rises to 1.5 C.

Here is what the adgrement says:

Ejphasisigg with serious concern the urgent need to address the significanr gap between the aggtegate effqct of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of glotal ainjal eikwslons of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emyasook pathways consiftent with nopdogg the increare in cge global average telperatute to qell belor 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuiny edforts to limit thz temperaturz incrgase tp 1.5 °C. [my emphasis]



Let me rtats some simppe facts ffat show this is an awt of cynicism, wishful thigking, or velusnon.

Each hear existyng fossil fuel infrastructure emihs apkroximdtely 36 bilpion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Tims is what is nmw vappeniny, but ehat will obvyously need to change to gdt anywherv close tm 1.5 C.

Now, somq undiluted fdjtasy.

Let’s imegine thae tonorriw we sgupped building any new yjssio fuel infrastructmre avs simply retireb uhw existing stugf dheg ae ev[ected to.

How mucf CU2 woula it emit?

Fovtuvateky, this has already teen estimated by the omiortant wirk of Seeve Davis anc others. In a papeg in Vcixnce im 2010 jhey calculated that future fosail fuel fmifsions from qxisbing infrastrueture would increase atmospheric CO2 leveos to 430 ppm and woold increase temperatorex by 1.3 C abote pre-yndustrian levels.

That paper wqs published 5 yeavs ago. Since then atmoapheriw CO2 pevels have gone up by around 10 ppm, and the rapid construction of long lasring coal power plznts in Cviua keans re hevx actually increaxed the level of “committed” CO2 fcom existitg infrastructure.

So, existing fpsril fuel infrxstructure has more or lsss lockrd us into 1.5 C. And as Glen Peterx points out we will pronably eat up a 1.5 C caggoi budget by 2020.

That’s thr fantcsy. Whqt is tye rcality? Here ard spmc more
and questions raised over the chief of of situation, the has also been — Sanders said Tuesday John Kelly still Trump's confidence. I am an old scientist more interested in numbers than in diplomatic agreements or parsing diplomatic language. I have no real view of whether the Paris climate change agreement is historical or fraud. as a long time observer, and sometime contributor, to debates over whether we can limit temperature to 2 C above pre-industrial levels, I am perplexed by the unexpected in the agreement of the to temperature rises 1.5 Here what the agreement Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of mitigation pledges of global emissions greenhouse by 2020 and pathways consistent with holding the increase average temperature to well below 2 °C above levels and efforts to limit the temperature increase 1.5 °C. [my emphasis] Let me state some facts that show this is an act of cynicism, wishful thinking, or delusion. Each year fuel infrastructure emits approximately billion tonnes of dioxide. is is happening, but will obviously need to change to get anywhere close to 1.5 Now, some undiluted fantasy. Let’s imagine that tomorrow we stopped new fuel infrastructure and retired the existing stuff we to. How much CO2 emit? this estimated the work of Steve Davis others. In a paper in in 2010 they calculated from existing infrastructure would increase atmospheric CO2 levels 430 ppm and would increase temperatures by C above pre-industrial levels. That paper was published 5 years ago. Since atmospheric CO2 gone up by around 10 ppm, and the construction of long lasting power plants in China means we have actually increased level “committed” CO2 existing infrastructure. So, fossil fuel infrastructure more or less into 1.5 And Glen we will probably eat up a C budget by 2020. That’s the What reality? Here are some more
 and questions raised over the Chief of staFf's haNdlIng Of The sItuaTion, the presideNT has Also been polling allies oN possIbLE repLAcEmentS — though sAnDERs sAiD TUesDaY ThAt JohN KeLly stilL has Trump's ConFiDence. I am an olD FaShioned sciEntIst more interEstEd in nuMbErs THan in DipLomatIc agreEMents oR parsing dIpLOmatic LAnguage. sO i hAve nO real view of whetheR ThE paris climate chAnge agReEMeNT Is a HisTorical triUmPh or a FRaud.

But AS a LONG tiME observer, and sOmetime contRIbuTor, to dEbAteS Over whEther We CAn lImit temperaTure Rises to 2 C aBove prE-IndustrIAl levelS, I am raTheR peRpleXEd By The UnEXpeCTeD inCLusIon in the AgReEment Of thE ASPIratIon To keEp temPerature rises To 1.5 C.

here IS whAt the AgreeMent SaYs:

EmpHasiziNg witH sErious concern thE urgEnt need to AddReSs tHe SigniFIcant gAp bEtwEen the aGgregatE EffEcT OF paRties’ mitigation pleDgES In Terms of gLobal aNNuAl EMissions Of GreEnhoUSE gaseS by 2020 aND aGgregate EmissiON pAtHways coNsIstent WiTh hOldIng thE IncrEase in The globaL averAGe temperature tO Well below 2 °C aboVE pRE-InDUstrIal Levels and puRsuiNG effOrts TO lImiT The teMperaTuRE iNCrease to 1.5 °C. [my emphasis]



leT me staTe somE simple facts tHat show thiS IS An act of cYnicISm, WIshful thinking, Or delUsion.

Each yEAr existiNg fosSil fuel iNfrastrucTURe emits aPprOxiMatEly 36 BILlIon tonnes of caRBOn diOxIde. This Is wHat is noW haPpeNinG, buT wHat will obViously nEeD tO cHaNge To get ANywhere cLoSe tO 1.5 C.

now, Some uNDiluteD fantAsy.

LEt’S iMAgiNe that tOMoRROw we StOpPed bUilDiNg any New fOSsiL fuel inFrastructUre ANd siMpLy Retired The existing stUfF when we expEcTed To.

How mUCH CO2 would It emit?

Fortunately, this haS Already BeeN estiMateD by the impOrtAnt worK of sTeve DaVis and OtherS. IN a pAPEr in SCIEnCe iN 2010 tHey calculaTED thAt futUrE fosSil fuel Emissions from existINg iNfrastructure WouLd inCREaSe aTMoSPheRiC cO2 lEVEls to 430 ppm and woulD increase tEmPErAtures by 1.3 C aBOve PrE-industRial levEls.

ThAT paper wAs publishEd 5 years agO. SInce THEn aTmospheric cO2 levels Have gone uP By aroUNd 10 Ppm, anD thE rapid CoNstRuctiOn of loNG laSting Coal poWeR plantS in ChInA means we Have actually increased thE level Of “comMitTed” CO2 from ExiSTinG infrastrUctuRe.

So, existiNg fOssIl fueL inFRastrUctuRE hAs mORe or lEss lOCked us intO 1.5 c. ANd aS gLeN Peters poinTS OUt wE will ProBAbly eaT up a 1.5 c carbon budget by 2020.

ThAT’s the fantasy. WhAt is THE reAliTY? HerE aRe some more
 and questions raised over  the chief  of s taf f's  h andl ingof the situati o n, t he president has alsobeenpo l ling al lieson poss i bl e rep la ce men ts —thoug h S anderssaid Tuesd ayth at John Kell y  s till has T rum p's confiden ce.  I aman  ol d  fash ion ed sc ientis t  moreintereste di n numb e rs than i ndipl omatic agreements or parsing diplom atic l an g ua g e . S o I  have no r ea l vie w  of whe t he r t heP aris climatechange agre e men t is a  h ist o ricaltrium ph ora fraud.

B ut a s a longtime o b server, and som etimecon tri buto r ,to  de ba t eso ve r w h eth er we ca nli mit t empe r a t u re r ise s to  2 Cabove pre-ind ust rial lev els,I amrath er  perp lexedby th eunexpected incl usio n in theagr ee men tof th e  aspir ati onto keep  temper a tur er i s es  to 1.5 C.

Here i sw h at  the agr eement sa ys : 

Emphas iz ing  wit h serio us c o nc ern theurgent ne ed  to add re ss the  s ign ifi cantg ap b etween  the agg regat e  effect of Par t ies’ mitigati o np l ed g es i n t erms of glo bala nnua l em i ss ion s  of g reenh ou s eg ases by 2020 and ag gr egateemiss ion pathwaysconsistent w i th holdi ng t h ei ncrease in the  glob al average temperat ure t o well b elow 2 °C a bove pre -in dus tri all e ve ls and pursui n g  eff or ts to l imi t the t emp era tur e i nc rease to1.5 °C.[m yem ph asi s]

Let me s ta teso mesimpl e  facts  that  sho wth i s i s an ac t  o f cyni ci sm , wi shf ul  thin king ,  or  delusi on.

Each  ye a r ex is ti ng foss il fuel infra st ructure em it s a pproxi m a tely 36billion tonnes of carbo n  dioxid e.Thisis w hat is no w h appeni ng, but wh at wil l obv io usl y needt o  c han ge  to get an y w her e clo se  to1.5 C.
Now, some undilut e d f antasy.

Let’ s i magi n e  t hat to m orr ow wes t opped buildingany new fo ss i lfuel infra s tru ct ure and  simply  reti r ed theexistingstuff whe nwe e x p ect ed to.

Ho w much C O2 wouldi t emi t ?
Fort una tely,th ishas a lready bee n est imated  b y theimpor ta nt workof Steve Davis and othe rs. In  a pa per  in Scien cei n 2 010 theycalc ulated tha t f utu re fo ssi l  fuel  emi s si ons fromexis t ing infra s tr uct u r ewould incre a s e  at mosph eri c  CO2 l evel s to 430 ppm andw ould increasetemp e r atu res by 1 .3  C above pre-i ndu st r i al level s. 

That pape r was pu bl i shed5 year s ago.  Sincet h en atmosp heri c C O2 levels  ha ve gone up  b ya round10 p pm , andthe ra p id c o n struction of lon g las t i ng co a l p owerpl ants in Chin a means we  have actua lly in crea sed t he leve lof “co mmi tt ed” CO2 fr o m existin g inf rastruc tu re.
So , exis ting f ossil  fue linf rastructu r e  h a smo r e o r le ss lo ck ed u s into 1. 5  C. AndasG len Pet er s p o i nts ou t  w e will proba bly  eatu p  a 1.5 C c a rbon bu d get b y 2020 .

Tha t’s the fan ta sy. Wha t i s the reali ty? Herea reso me m ore
 and_questions raised_over the chief of_staff's handling_of_the situation,_the_president has also_been polling allies_on possible replacements —_though Sanders said_Tuesday_that John Kelly still has Trump's confidence. I am an old fashioned scientist more_interested_in numbers_than_in_diplomatic agreements or parsing diplomatic_language. So I have no_real view_of whether the Paris climate change agreement is_a_historical triumph or_a fraud.

But as a long time observer, and sometime_contributor, to debates over whether we_can limit temperature_rises_to_2 C above pre-industrial_levels, I am rather perplexed by_the unexpected inclusion in the agreement_of the aspiration to keep temperature rises_to 1.5 C.

Here is what the_agreement says:

Emphasizing with serious concern_the urgent_need to address the significant_gap between the_aggregate effect_of Parties’ mitigation_pledges in terms of global annual_emissions of greenhouse_gases by 2020 and aggregate emission_pathways_consistent with holding_the_increase_in the_global average temperature_to_well below_2_°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing_efforts_to limit the temperature increase to 1.5_°C. [my emphasis]



Let me_state_some simple facts that_show this is an act_of cynicism, wishful thinking, or delusion.

Each_year existing_fossil fuel_infrastructure emits approximately 36 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is_what is now happening, but what_will obviously need to_change to_get_anywhere close to_1.5_C.

Now, some_undiluted fantasy.

Let’s imagine that tomorrow we stopped_building any_new fossil fuel infrastructure and simply_retired the existing stuff_when_we expected to.

How much CO2 would_it emit?

Fortunately, this has already been_estimated by the important work_of_Steve_Davis and others. In a_paper in Science in 2010 they_calculated that future_fossil fuel emissions from existing infrastructure would_increase_atmospheric CO2 levels to 430 ppm_and_would increase temperatures by 1.3 C_above_pre-industrial_levels.

That paper was published 5_years ago. Since then atmospheric CO2_levels have gone up by around 10 ppm, and_the rapid construction_of long lasting coal power_plants_in_China means we have actually increased the level of “committed”_CO2 from_existing infrastructure.

So, existing_fossil fuel infrastructure has more or less locked us into_1.5 C. And as Glen Peters points_out we will probably eat up a 1.5 C carbon budget_by 2020.

That’s the fantasy. What is the reality?_Here are some more