Campaigners say atmospheric carbon must not pass 350 parts per million
You can't do this on your own, no matter how heroic a consumer you are.
You could reduce your lifetime carbon footprint to zero - by making your home zero-carbon, never use a car and grow your own food - and save the world from dangerous climate change for just a mere two seconds.
So the most important thing you can do is make sure your government recognises the importance of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions in climate policy.
At a previous round of negotiations, in Bonn in June, a group of us presented an open letter to the negotiators urging them to acknowledge the need to limit cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide.
We did not call for a specific cap: just an acknowledgement that the principle would fundamentally alter the focus of future negotiations. The aim would no longer be to ration out emissions; the aim would be to ban them, just as we banned CFCs. We didn't save the ozone layer by rationing deodorant.
As far as we can tell, that request fell on deaf ears: "This was not the focus of the negotiations at present."
Odd, when cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide are the principal determinant of the risk of dangerous long-term human-induced climate change.
And next time you are in London, drop in to the Science Museum to pay your respects to the trillionth tonne.
Take your children. Explain to them that if it is still there for them to show their grandchildren, they will have achieved a lot in the fight against climate change - but not enough.
Only when their grandchildren are showing their grandchildren the trillionth tonne, still safely on display in the Science Museum in the mid-22nd-century, will this whole saga be passing into history.
And wish them luck.
Myles Allen heads the Climate Dynamics Group in the Department of Physics, Oxford University, and is the principal investigator of climateprediction.net
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Do you agree with Myles Allen? Is it necessary for leaders to mandate emissions cuts now - or can the world wait? What do you realistically expect from the Copenhagen summit? Will the trillionth tonne ever be burnt?
I fully expect that there will be no discussion at all about deforestation. The destruction of the rainforests releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all forms of fossil-fuelled transport across the entire globe. But will anything be done about it at the summit?
Just as eco protesters get their priorities wrong by vandalising the few coal-fired power stations we have in this country, so too will the summit delegates get their priorities wrong by interminable waffle about carbon taxes.Paul, Devon
Actually CO2 doesn't stay in the atmosphere indefinitely, but only about 7 years, according to the latest research.
And the average increase of 1.6% per year in CO2 emissions hasn't resulted in any increase in world temperatures since 1998. Temperatures have actually fallen in the last three years.
CO2 emissions were increasing dramatically from 1940 - 1972 as well, while world temperatures went through a 30 year period of decreases. There is very little corelation between CO2 changes and temperature changes, other than when temperatures go up, CO2 increases, based on Arctic ice cores going back 700,000 years.
Better keep that coal locked away. People might be fighting to get their hands on it to keep warm in a few years.Paul Stevens, Hastings, Ontario, Canada
Assuming that one isn't a "skeptic," it doesn't look very good, does it? In the US we've gotten rid of the Bush administration stumbling block, only to find another stumbling block in the form of Republican filibuster threats in the Senate.
Moreover, it appears that in the larger picture, there is simply too much disagreement over who should have to be responsible for what. I don't see good prospects for bridging the gap between developing nations which believe they should get the same free hand that the western world enjoyed in the 19th and 20th centuries, and those now-developed western countries (my own in particular) which believe, eg., that China's total emissions require serious cutbacks regardless of how small they are per-capita.
A global treaty to make serious cutbacks in GHG emissions, starting now, is still the best hypothetical solution, but I'm afraid that in practical terms this approach is just unworkable. The theoretical distant-second of "geoengineering" is, it seems more and more likely, the only practical option available. I suspect that our best bet may be forests of "artificial trees" to capture pollution from the air; as insane as this may sound when we have perfectly good rainforests that need saving, the rich world is much more likely to spend its money on machines which it can design and build at home, and precisely meter.Matthew Kuhns, Lakewood, Ohio, USA
Lord Dudley put Newcommen's first atmospheric 'fire engine' to work pumping his colliery in 1712; so I'm puzzled as to kicking off the calculations from 1750 ? That trillionth tonne may have already gone up the spout . . .But yes; at some point; we have to stop. Not only carbon emissions, but everything else too. Will the science museum host the "trillionth ton of fish landed", or the trillionth square metre of land concreted over; or the trillionth tonne of biodiversity pushed to extinction? Is some bright spark out there planning for the "trillionth person on the planet?" - to which most "sane rational people" would say; "but a trillion people wouldn't physically fit !?"
So how come these same "sane rational people" miss all the other looming indicators and that 6 billion people here now do not fit. We passed the real "tipping point" at . . what; 2 billion people, 3 billion people ? - somewhere around there, and that was back in the 1970's. No, I'm afraid the "they shall not pass" point was passed way back 30 years ago.
The trouble is; the people who will do something about it, and stop breeding, will be the "nice, quiet, wouldn't say boo to a goose" people . . . The "out for whatever they can get" people; will say "great, more for me . . ." and carry on business as usual; so they are the ones that are going to "fry and die !"- which all kinda works out with the gorgeous irony it deserves !
Well, winter's here; I bet somebody nicks a few bags of that coal before the end of the week.Steven Walker, Penzance
Science is taking a huge risk at becoming discredited with its CO2 theory. This theory has a 90% confidence rate. But what about the 10%? How is the current profile going to be viewed in 10 years time after further global cooling, in spite of higher CO2 concentrations, with the link to climate and solar activity established? This could turn humans to even more reckless treatment of the planet in future.Iwan Jones, Horsham
The article is a bit misleading. While emissions have gone up atmospheric increases would be what mattered. The actual atmospheric increases are below the IPCC's projections so we would still only see about a 2C total anomaly even with business as usual. In fact, given the rate of output v/s the change in atmospheric levels of CO2 it may not even be possible to much more than double CO2 concentrations if we burned every last bit of coal known to exist.
Far more important than CO2 is the absurd notion that the energy, economic and industrial systems can somehow be manipulated to produce the results (and secondary results) many suggest. Pretty much every nation that has ever tried anything similar has been held back technologically, economically and socially (health and human rights) and usually been forced to embrace a free(er) market once again.
The newer types of nuclear plants are the best bet if you want to build power infrastructure NOW. There is enough uranium and thorium fuel to provide 120-250 years at the USA's per capita power usage (40kw/hr per day) for a population of 8 billion people! Long before this runs out we will have viable fusion and/or solar to take its place.
Solar-thermal is great but everyone needs to give up their all-or-nothing, anti-carbon attitude and add oil/gas burners that will allow the plants to operate at night and cloudy days...turning it into a base-load plant producing MOST of its power from solar. Since it provides base-load power this type of plant would actually INCREASE the grid's ability to tolerate other, more unstable renewables.
Solar photovoltaic is not yet ready and should never, I repeat NEVER be used as a significant source of grid-connected power at this time. Their manufacture is expensive, produces toxic waste and the expensive panels are prime targets for theft. In its concentrated form (strips of photovoltaic cells in front of parabolic mirrors) it is a bit more viable, but being DC it loses a significant portion of its energy in conversion to grid-compatible DC. Also unlike solar-thermal you cannot simply add a boiler/burner to convert it into a base-load plant. You would essentially need to have an entirely independent power plant for that, which is wasteful and expensive.
Wind...more resource intensive than you think (200 tons of steel, 1000 cubic meters of concrete per 4mw turbine) and you need about 3-5 times nameplate capacity to semi-reliably produce the nameplate capacity. The conditions within a wind farm provide intolerable living conditions for humans and it would take an array half the size of the UK to reliably produce the UK's power demands.
As I mentioned with solar-thermal, if the green groups would stop proposing unimaginably stupid and ineffective energy policies then they would get some of the progress they want and everyone would be happy to do it. Any viable solution that we are capable of undertaking today would necessarily require nuclear for base load, fossil fuels for backup or some of both.Lloyd Burt, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
I think those politicians might actually agree on a climate deal. However, it is unrealistic to think that they will agree on all the specifics. They will have a basic plan but most likely continue negotiations on the details into mid/late 2010.James Hwang, Irvine, US
This is the biggest hoax since Bernie Madoff.
First, the most plentiful green house gas by far is water vapor! Second, where are all the vineyards that were so common in England 1000 years ago? Third, why don't we just disallow volcanic eruptions, that spew more carbon than man has since the beginning of time.
Yes, from the same genius' that brought you Y2K, 'Global Warming'. Except the nasty, real, scientific data confirms that we are now entering a global cooling period. As a matter of fact weather models agree that this winter will see temperatures much below normal in most of Europe with many records broken.
AND as a last parting shot, is the U.N. pressure of two years ago on leading climatologists to endose the stance that increased levels of carbon would cause such a massive increase in hurricanes that the southern coast of the U.S. would be a wasteland. There were no takers, as science did not agree with with such a ridiculous theory. This year to date, there have been no hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and hurricane season is almost over. Tony C, Calgary
Well done Myles. We know both the approaches 'to act immediately' and 'to keep patience'. When somebody submerges in river, people do not see how he reached inside the river or they do not waste time in less important things, their first reaction is to jump and save that person in proper way. On the contrary, when we interact with a nice and honest youth, frustrated with some problem and behaving in angry and violent way, we need appropriate skill and patience to handle him. We require 'infinite patience' to handle some critical situations.
But, when I look at the current trends we are aggressive on most of the places, where we require 'patience' or 'infinite patience' and places where we need to 'act immediately' we are silent with 'infinite patience'. Look at the 'compounding effect' of the existing trends. At one hand population is growing at tremendous pace and on the other hand the natural reserves are rapidly declining. Non judicious life styles are expanding with rapid pace. The definition of 'minimum requirement' has been changed. We can see both 'actual and virtual carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide' in most of our things like electricity, concrete, milk, meat, vegetables and crops grown with fertilizers, transported items, fossil fuel based vehicles etc. We are running on the road where at one point of time, we would face utter crisis of food, water, air etc. with too many people.
Initially things would be difficult. Restricting population, changing life style, changing aggressive existing patterns of the economy would require lot of effort, dedication, skill and planning. Very soon things would become smooth when people would realize that 'the problems of transitions' are less difficult than 'the problems of the existing patterns'.
We do not have to blame anybody. It is the 'ingredients of the system' that needs to be changed. The representatives of the nations are part of the existing system. They represent the country. 'Collective attitude' always dominates the 'personal attitude'. If somebody rebels in the existing system possibility is that he may be thrown out. This is the peculiar nature of the problem. Therefore, need is to design a new system in such a way that it does not come in direct conflict with the existing pattern. Control on population through financial incentives, legislations and other mild means should be the first step in this direction. More we surrender under the existing pattern, more we make our task difficult in the near future. We must design suitable 'small interventions' in the existing pattern so that in the long run we would be able to get 'U turn' in relatively smooth way. The 'great transition' as suggested by Andrew Simms in the previous article must be consisting of many 'small interventions'.Sanjay Singh Thakur, Indore,India
Ya, I agree with him or her. Though it is not mandatory for them they have a great influence to change the amount of carbon emision and the world should not wait for the leaders, the people should be aware of thier envirnment. I really expect a great solution on the environmental problems atleast to contribut on helping the developing countries to subsidise on changing thier people's awarness to the environmental chalenges. May be the trilions of carbon could burn if the world did not act on it. at last we should fight environmental problems only by teaching people and gowing experts on the field environments.yukuno yohannes ghebremedhin, Asmara, Eritrea
The Copenhagen Climate Summit will bring together concerned business leaders and governments from around the world to help kick-start the low-carbon revolution. Copenhagen can actually deliver a significant result for the benefit of future generations. It could create millions of new green jobs, unleash huge investments in new, low-carbon markets, and thereby spur economic growth. There will be the strong focus on energy saving and a secure energy supply. To minimize the global warming they must preserve trillionth tonne instead of release until 2050.Engineer Md Abdus Salam, Kushtia Zilla Parishad, Bangladesh.
Does anybody want to join me in a cunning and devious plan to steal the trillionth tonne? If they can't burn it then at least we will be able to stop global heating at 2 degrees! If only I had known, I would have stolen the 500 millionth tonne and stopped them burning that! I bet that tonne wasn't guarded so well! Simon Mallett, Maidstone, Kent
History will show that the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming is based on Green hysteria and not actual scientific Facts. Computer predictions have absolutely no record of showing trends that match records from all parts of the planet. The idea that 350 ppm CO2 levels are the only way of avoiding a catastrophe is to ignore actual historical data. The psuedo scientific politically steered Carbon Footprint/Offset/Trading scam is just that, a scam with no proof of its veracity. Vast sums of money are being squandered to produce electrical power by any means other than the cheapest. The need for the latest Nuclear Power designs [as usual, no CO2!] and newer coal fired systems [clean coal is a myth at present] will be needed when the various alternative sources of power, wind/solar etc fail to provide anything more than a token and a very expensive token at that, of the needs of a badly power managed country - the UK. BTW Ozone layer was not saved by banning CFCs. The Ozone layer never had a hole and the present alternative to CFCs is proving to be a beg mistake! Yet another example of Green hysteria blinding the true facts. Myles Allen is reading the wrong books/papers.Brian Johnson, Farnham Surrey UK
The only agreement that's likely to result from the Copenhagen meeting is an increase in the use of carbon trading, including its application to households and individuals. In other words, nothing is going to be done about the continued rise in emissions.David, Cheshire
The trillionth tonne will surely be burnt; if we don't burn it another nation will be happy to buy it from us and burn it for their own use. Oil and Coal are incredibly versatile and energy-dense and while the world's energy requirements continue to rise, which they will, so too will the production of these fuels.
The problem with CCS. Carbon Capture sounds like the solution to all of our problems, necessitating that a value be placed on carbon stored in geological formations through either a carbon tax or a carbon trading scheme. Estimates of the UK's 'viable capacity' (as reported by the BGS) are in the region of 1.2 Gt of carbon in the best sites (i.e. depleted oil and gas fields). The CO2 stored will, for reasons of project economics and the opportunity of recovering a precious and versatile resource, be used in conjunction with EHR (Enhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery). The oil recovered is estimated to be approx. 2 billion barrels of oil - when one considers that North Sea Oil is primarily light and sweet, its fainal use will most likely involve its combustion releasing CO2 to the atmosphere not amenable to capture.
A back of the envelope calculation which did not include energy used in refining showed that there would be little (if any) net-saving of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
It seems to be that any value given to stored carbon simply makes the deal of recovery of difficult-to-get hydrocarbons a little sweeter. It is not surprising that there such an urgency to get the ball rolling on carbon-taxing since from 2010 the oil wells in the north sea will begin to be plugged and to have infrastructure removed, which could otherwise be adapted to CO2-EOR.
Also, is there sound science to suggest that removing a very small amount of CO2 from the atmosphere (while overall world emissions continue to grow) will produce a result that is predictable or even measurable against the background of natural climate variability (little talked about by the IPCC)? I think not.
Besides, if we make drastic carbon cuts and observe surface temperature levelling off we will pat ourselves on the back. If, however, temperatures continue to rise, despite drastic action, we will say that we acted too late!
Being uncertain of the benefits of decarbonisation, are there things we could spend the money on that would have a lot of benefit now (both by improving quality of life and increasing the likelihood of successful adaptation to whatever climate change takes place)? Surely so. (And here I refer you to work done by the Copenhagen Concensus)C J Brent, Southampton
Send us your comments using the form below:
On a recent trip down to Silicon Valley from San Francisco, I got a chance to sit down for an extended discussion with Brian Hinman. He is one of a growing number of A-list venture capitalists who have jumped the fence from IT into alternative energy and greentech ventures. Oak Investment Partners is one of the most venerable venture capital firms in the country, and Hinman is the firm's point man on greentech. He's the kind of guy that you have to listen to based on his track record -- co-founder of a two successful companies and a former CEO of a third. Hinman founded Picturetel, which was later acquired by telecom equipment company PolyCom (PLCM). Hinman then founded 2Wire, another telecom equipment company that ended up with revenues greater than $300 million. 
Argonne chemist Jeff Elam examines solar cell materials prepared using atomic layer deposition at various stages of fabrication.