From:

Subject:
Date:
To:
Cc:

Douglas Grandt answerthecall@me.com

Are you immoral, amoral or moral?
November 7, 2016 at 4:18 PM
Rex Tillerson Rex.W.Tillerson@ExxonMobil.com
Darren W. Woods Darren.W.Woods@ExxonMobil.com, Suzanne M. McCarron Suzanne.M.McCarron@ExxonMobil.com,
Max Schulz max.schulz@exxonmobil.com

Dear Rex Tillerson,

.

You claim to have top-notch scientists in ExxonMobils employ

and associations with top-notch institutions of higher learning.
.

Will ExxonMobil acknowledge the current science, below?

.

After four years of ignoring my admonitions, will you respond?

.

Will you act like a leader and break free of the conventional
business-as-usual paradigm? Are you immoral or amoral?
.

Does you philosophy of make money override all else?

.

I trust you to see the light before you retire and vanish into
oblivion. Lead ExxonMobil and the industry. Be moral.
.

Sincerely yours,
.

Doug Grandt

Only three years to save 1.5C climate taret, says UNEP

.

By Simon Evans | 3 November 2016 | CarbonBrief.com

.

The door will close on the 1.5C warming limit unless countries
raise their ambition before 2020, says the UN Environment
Program (UNEP).
.

Greater pre-2020 action is the last chance for 1.5C, says the latest annual UNEP
Emissions Gap report. It is published one day before the Paris Agreement on
climate change enters into force. The deal pledges to keep warming well below
2C and to make efforts to keep it below 1.5C.

2C and to make efforts to keep it below 1.5C.

This years report is the first to explicitly measure the so-called ambition gap for
1.5C and its call to action is more strongly worded than previous reports. However,
its key messages are unchanged. Carbon Brief puts the 2016 emissions gap report
in context.
Emissions gap
Each year since 2010, UNEP has measured current climate ambition against the
latest understanding of what will be necessary to avoid dangerous warming. Any
shortfall is known as the emissions gap.
Its starting point is the allowable level of global greenhouse gas emissions at a
fixed point in future, for a likely chance of limiting warming to a given temperature.
In its earliest reports, the reference points were allowable emissions in 2020 and a
warming limit of 2C.
This year, in line with the ambition of the Paris Agreement, UNEP has extended its
analysis to allowable emissions in 2030, for warming limits of either 1.5 or 2C.
Against these limits, emissions have actually been increasing. They reached
around 53 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2014, UNEP says.
For a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5C, this total should be no more than
39GtCO2e in 2030. For a likely chance (66%) of 2C, the limit is 42GtCO2e. (Note
the different probabilities here. Scenarios with a likely chance of avoiding 1.5C are
even more challenging).
Current plans fall well short of these goals, UNEP says. If countries carry out their
climate pledges, emissions would remain at 53-55GtCO2e in 2030, it finds. This
would leave an emissions gap of 12-14GtCO2e for the 2C limit, or 15-17GtCO2e
for the 1.5C limit.
Put another way, countries climate pledges amount to less than half of the cuts
needed to reach the goals they agreed in Paris. Whats more, there is very little
time to close this gap.
The Paris deal has a built-in ratchet mechanism, designed to raise ambition over
time. The first formal opportunity to use this is in 2018. However, UNEP says that
raising ambition before 2020 is likely the last chance to keep the option of limiting
global warming to 1.5C, leaving just three full years.

Wakeup call
In a foreword to this years report, Erik Solheim, head of UNEP, and Jacqueline
McGlade, UNEPs chief scientist, write:
We must take urgent action. If we dont, we will mourn the loss of biodiversity and
natural resources. We will regret the economic fallout. Most of all, we will grieve
over the avoidable human tragedy; the growing numbers of climate refugees hit by
hunger, poverty, illness and conflict will be a constant reminder of our failure to
deliverAs the Paris Agreement legally enters into force, we sincerely hope this
report will be a wakeup call to the world.
These words are by far the most dramatic to introduce a UNEP emissions gap
report. The report also contains words of caution on negative emissions, which are
included in most scenarios for 1.5 or 2C.
The report describes options for negative emissions, from afforestation and soil
carbon restoration through to biomass with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
However, it notes important challenges to their widespread use, including high
land use and competition with biodiversity.
Check out Carbon Briefs archive to learn more about the political, technical and
environmental constraints at play. In short, relying on negative emissions is risky,
since they are not sure to work.
On the other hand, hedging against a strong reliance on negative emissionsis
only possible by reducing emissions more steeply in the very near term [5 to 15
years], the report says.
This echoes the findings of a recent commentary in the journal Science, which said
mitigation should proceed on the premise that [negative emissions] will not work at
scale.
Taken together with the timeline for saving the 1.5C warming limit, the clear
message of the UNEP emissions gap report is that only urgent, stringent cuts to
greenhouse gas output will be consistent with maintaining a decent chance of
avoiding dangerous climate change.
Gap years
How does this message compare to earlier UNEP reports? The first emissions gap
report was published in 2010. At the time, it said not a single published scenario
was consistent with a likely chance of limiting warming to 1.5C. It identified an

was consistent with a likely chance of limiting warming to 1.5C. It identified an

emissions gap for 2C of 5-9GtCO2e in 2020.
Introducing the report, Achim Steiner, then executive director of UNEP, wrote that
tackling climate change is still manageable. Still, the 2010 report noted that
pathways capable of meeting the 2C and 1.5C limits would require the
development of technologies for achieving negative emissions.
In a box explaining the concept of negative emissions, it said:
Many models assume a large deployment of bioenergy combined with carbon
capture and storage (BECCS) technology in order to achieve negative emissions.
The feasibility of large scale bioenergy systems is related to its sustainability,
including the availability of sufficient land and water, its impact on biodiversity,
and the productivity of biomass.
A year later, the 2011 emissions gap report was still unable to identify any published
pathways to 1.5C, with at least a likely chance of success. It said the 2020
emissions gap for 2C was larger than thought a year previously, at 6-11GtCO2e.
Introducing the report, Steiner wrote in more urgent terms:
The window for addressing climate change is rapidly narrowingThis report
speaks to an emissions gap that urgently needs addressing.
It once again pointed to negative emissions and BECCS, saying that 2C pathways
have a peak [in emissions] before 2020and/or reach negative emissions in the
longer term.
Urgent action
The 2012 edition, produced with support from the UK government, said the 2020
emissions gap for 2C was even larger than thought, increasing it to 8-13GtCO2e. It
also looked further out to 2030, saying emissions that year should be a maximum
of 37GtCO2e to remain 2C compatible.
In contrast to the 2010 and 2011 editions, the report said 1.5C pathways had been
identified. It said: The few studies available indicate that a 1.5C target can still be
met. It said emissions in 2020 would have to be no more than 43GtCO2e and be
followed by very rapid reductions.
Steiner wrote in the foreword:

The emissions gap report 2012 underlines the importance of strong global
action post-2020, but emphasizes that unless action to close the gap is taken
urgently, the longer-term challenge may be insurmountable.
It said that the majority of scenarios compatible with a likely chance of avoiding
2C relied on negative emissions later this century. It added: negative emissions is
simple in analytical models but in real life implies the need to apply new and often
unproven technologies.
By 2013, the emissions gap report was receiving support from the German
government. It was introduced by Steiner as a call for political action. It left the 2C
emissions gap for 2020 broadly unchanged at 8-12GtCO2e and repeated the need
to keep emissions in 2030 to 35GtCO2e.
It said:
If the emissions gap is not closed, or significantly narrowed, by 2020, the door to
many options limiting the temperature increase to 1.5C at the end of the century
will be closedThe longer that decisive mitigation efforts are postponed, the
higher the dependence on negative emissions.
More negative
The 2014 edition outwardly continued in a similar vein, with Steiner writing that
consistent and decisive action is required without any further delay. However, it
also introduced significant changes to the underlying scenario analysis.
For instance, it increased allowable emissions in 2030 from 35GtCO2e to
42GtCO2e. It justified this change on the basis that previous analysis had assumed
stringent efforts to reduce emissions starting in 2010. These efforts had failed to
materialise.
In order to balance out this increase in 2030 emissions while maintaining a 2C
pathway, the 2014 report scenarios assume that a much higher level of negative
emissions will be needed.
Despite these changes, to allow higher emissions in the medium term, UNEP still
identified large emissions gaps of 8-10GtCO2e in 2020 and 14-17GtCO2e in 2030.
The 2015 report, published in the run-up to the COP21 Paris climate talks,
maintained the 42GtCO2e limit for 2030. However, it reduced the emissions gap for
that year slightly, to 12-14GtCO2e, as a result of the climate pledges made in

that year slightly, to 12-14GtCO2e, as a result of the climate pledges made in

advance of Paris.
It reiterated that 2C pathways are reliant on negative emissions later this century.
Introducing the findings, Steiner concluded optimistically:
I firmly believe that if we act on the findings of this report, there is nothing to
stop us closing the emissions gap and creating a more inclusive and sustainable
future.