Click logo to return to 'links-page'


In 2015 with encouragment from Don Brown of Pennsylvania University and at the suggestion of Plan B,
GCI created web pages based on the INDCs and CBAT methodology.

These led to the image below. With the three 'necklace' budgets for compliance with 1.5° to 2.0° C - as in the 'Paris Climate Agreement' - this image became very widely used.

This global carbon budgeting also became the basis of a legal strategy in 2015.
This is being used in the UK Courts this year (2017), for Judicial Review of the UKCA initiated by Plan B,
which action Sir David King supports.

From the above and from what follows, it is clear there is a growing consensus that the 'path-integral' of the global carbon contraction budget needs to be around

• three times lighter by carbon weight and
• three times faster by contraction-rate

than the global carbon budget in the UK Climate Act.

In 2016, telling his audience at the IEA in January that, 'we face a looming climate catastrophe', Sir David King (former UK Government Chief Scientist & climate negotiator) presented this analysis of future carbon budgets in relation to the INDCs under the Paris Agreement, elaborating on what it will take to avoid that catastrophe.

In 2017, on this basis the UK Government has been asked to explain what they intend to do about the inadequacy of their climate response (illustrated here) against the temperature goals now in the Paris Agreement to which the UK is a signatory. As responses received from HMG have been inadequate, Judicial Review now seems certain.

Stephen Hawking, tells the BBC - "We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible."

John Schellnhuber et al abandon the RCP 2.6 scenario of 288 Gt C under-pinning the UKCA (from UKMO) and adopt the carbon weight/rate equivalent of the Carbon Budgets as published in NATURE, while retaining the unrealistically delayed feedback schedule of 'tipping points'.

• UKMO unexpectedly declares these carbon budgets as scientifically sound for the new target of 1.5° -
  
  
• comparing the 'shrinking carbon budgets' now look like this: -
  
  
  
  
• In June 2017 the European Parliament voted to make the Paris Agreement legally binding.
  
  
• In a now 30 year effort on the climate-science/policy interface, both diagnosing the problem & cognitively mapping the solution with C&C, this sequence of developments adds to the vindication of GCI's whole approach. Many parties have made statements to that effect and many eminent individuals have agreed with the approach.
  
  
• By so profoundly under-estimating the risks we face (see IPCC 1-4) in conjuction with the extent of misdirection wrapped in the monotinic absurdity of the feedback-free RCP scenarios that dominated IPCC AR5 (2015), this is now plain for all to see.
  
  
• In 2010, doubling the upper ppmv CO2 concentration limit from 1000 ppmv to 2000 ppmv (RCP 8.5) for the IPCC AR5;
  (why and for whom was this done?).
  
  
• In 2010, the removal of RCP scenarios for 1.5° C for IPCC AR5 by the UKMO et al is still completely unexplained;
  (why and for whom was this done?).
  
  
• Now, already in just 2017, we are seeing the abandonment of even the lowest limit 450 ppmv (RCP 2.6)
  
  
• This is in favour of smaller carbon budgets to try & return to 350 ppmv for an upper temperature limit of 1.5°C, as per the Paris Agreement.
  
  
• All this is being done recognizing the climate emergency we are in (already called in 1996 by GCI at COP-2 - see page 26).
  
  
• As a result of the Paris Agreement being legally binding and the failure of the UK Government to abide by it Plan B has applied for a Judicial Review.