Download Do we need a global agreement to solve the climate change problem?

Do we need a global agreement to solve the
climate change problem?
Image source: NASA
Professor Brendan Mackey, PhD
Director, Griffith Climate Change Response Program
Griffith University
email: [email protected]
Business-as-usual
20C “guard rail”
Source: pers. comm.
Change in frequency of extreme events?
“By 2050, +3 s.d. extreme heat
events become the norm and +5
s.d. common”
Frequency of occurrence (y-axis) of local temperature anomalies
divided by local standard deviation (x-axis) obtained by binning
all local results for 11-year periods into 0.05 frequency intervals.
Standard deviations are for the indicated base period.
Source: Figure 9, Hansen et al. (2012) PNAS http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/PerceptionsAndDice/
Could continuing to burn fossil fuel create a
“runaway” greenhouse effect?
EARTH
 50C at top of atmosphere
 17 0C due to greenhouse/albedo
 1 bar atm pressure, CO2 0.04%
VENUS
 580C at top of atmosphere
 4770C due to greenhouse/albedo
 90 atm pressure, CO2 98%
Where might we end up if mitigation efforts fails?
(Source: Meinhausen, pers. comm.)
+12°C by
2200 ?!
Failure to mitigate will lead to system collapse &
transformation changes
Transformational
change
Major adjustments
Minor adjustments
Source: Climate Change: Science & Solutions for Australia, CSIRO, 2011
Burning fossil fuel for energy is the primary cause of human-forced
climate change, therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions is the only
solution
:
Hazelwood power station in the La Trobe Valley in
Victoria's south-east (Source: AAP: Greenpeace)
Soource: abc.net.au
But, by how much, how quickly & by when?
The mitigation contraction curve
Global CO2 emissions to 2000
Global CO2 emissions going
forward to stabilize at ~20C
Area under curve is
permissible emissions
Source: Steffen, W. (2011) The critical decade.: Climate science, risks and responses. Climate Commission Secretariat,
Commonwealth of Australian
What is the total amount of fossil fuel carbon that humanity can emit in order to limit
climate change to 20C guard rail (450ppm atmCO2eq) (i.e. area under contraction
curve)?
~1000 billion t CO2 (367 billion t C)
2009 global fossil fuel and cement emissions were 30.8 billion tons of CO2 (8.4 ± 0.5
billion t C)
i.e. 44 years of current annual emissions
Sources:
 Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2008 366, 3863-3882: To achieve IPCC 450
atmCO2eq upper limit cumulative value for 2000–2100 is 858 Gt CO2e)
 Solving the climate dilemma: The budget approach Special Report. German Advisory Council on Global
Change, Secretariat WBGU: Total global budget of 750 Gt CO2 from fossil sources for the period 2010–
2050, after the year 2050, available global CO2 amounts to 230 Gt O2
 P. Friedlingstein1 et al. (2010) Update on CO2 emissions. Nature Geoscience 3
The global carbon budget pie – yum!
1. The pie cannot be made any bigger
2. We cannot make second pie now
3. If we eat up all the pie now, we
cannot make another pie for 30 000 –
100 000 years
4.
Over the next 70 years, the pie has
to be shared between 7 billion
people living in 193 UN sovereign
states
367 G t C
 Outcome from 1992 Rio Earth Summit
 Australia is a signatory and has given its consent to be bound by its decisions
 Many nations such as Australia has enacted new legislation to give affect to their
treaty obligations
 As a framework treaty, nations committed to ongoing negotiations (CoPs) on a
complex and growing agenda
Media focus has been on failure of the UNFCCC 2009 Copenhagen 15th session of the
Conference of Parties (COP 15) to deliver a legally binding mitigation agreement which
prescribes national targets and timelines for the deep cuts in fossil fuel emissions
needed to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that will limit
climate change to the “2 degree safety bar”
What we got was not “the real deal” but the Copenhagen Accord
Copenhagen Accord critique
 Does not set time-bound targets for emissions reductions from countries
 Promotes a framework for future agreements based on pledge and review such
that countries will be allowed to voluntarily pledge their domestic targets,
whatever these may be, which will be aggregated at the global level
 Burden of emission reduction shifts to developing world
But, does it really matter?
1. Wasting time on trying to negotiate “the real deal” detracts the world
community from taking mitigation action, including national initiatives, bilaterals,
private sector and civil society
2. International law is not legally enforceable so it’s what people do not what nations
say they’ll do that counts
3. Mitigation action is happening under Copenhagen Accord
Commitments are being made under
Copenhagen Accord
To date, countries representing ~83% of
global emissions have engaged with the
Copenhagen Accord. Submitted reduction
targets:
Compared to 1990:
EU: 20% - 30%
Japan: 25%
Russia: 15% - 25%
Ukraine: 20%
Compared to 2000:
Australia: 5% - 25%
Compared to 2005:
Canada: 17%
US: 17%
Compared to business as usual:
Brazil: 36.1% - 38.9%
Indonesia: 26%
Mexico: 30%
South Africa: 34%
South Korea: 30%
Carbon intensity compared to 2005:
China: 40% - 45%
India: 20% - 25%
Map of growth in the number of countries pledging action and the portion of global
emissions covered under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Source: The Critical Decade: International Action on Climate Change by Tim Flannery, Roger Beale and Gerry Hueston
Climate Commission) © Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) 2012
Business-as-usual
But commitments
breach the 20 safety rail!
Thermometer shows the global-mean temperature increase above pre-industrial by
2100, with an uncertainty range originating from carbon-cycle and climate modelling
Source: http://climateactiontracker.org/
And, these commitments came with conditions
Quantified economy-wide emission reduction
targets by developed country Parties to the
Convention: assumptions, conditions,
commonalities and differences in approaches and
comparison of the level of emission reduction
efforts. Technical paper
UNFCCC FCCC/TP/2012/5 (23 August 2012)
Emission reduction targets
Country
Commitment
Conditional on global agreement
Australia
Target of 5% up to
15% or 25% emission
reduction relative to
2000
15% conditional on global agreement <450ppm CO2e &
access to deeper and broader functional carbon
markets; 25% target conditional on ambitious global
deal capable of stabilizing 450 ppm CO2e or lower,
mobilization of greater financial resources, including
from major developing economies, and results in fully
functioning global carbon markets
Canada
Target of 17% elative
to 2005
Target to be aligned with final economy-wide emission
reduction target of USA in enacted Legislation
European
Target of 20%/30%
Union &
emission reduction
27 member relative to 1990
States
Target of 20% by 2020 is unconditional and supported
by legislation in place since 2009 (Climate and Energy
Package). 30% conditional on a global comprehensive
agreement post 2012 and all Parties contributing
fair share to cost-effective global emission reduction
pathway, other developed countries commit
themselves to comparable emission reductions,
developing countries contribute adequately according
to responsibilities and respective capabilities
Emission reduction targets (cont’d)
Country
Commitment
Conditional on global agreement
Japan
25% emission
reduction relative to
1990
Conditional on establishment of fair and effective
international framework in which all major economies
participate and on agreement by those economies on
ambitious targets
Russian
Federation
15–25% emission
reduction relative to
1990
Range of target depends on the following conditions:
(a) Appropriate accounting of potential of Russian
Federation’s forestry sector in the context of its
contribution to meeting the obligations of
anthropogenic emission reductions;
(b) Undertaking by all major emitters of legally binding
obligations to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions
United
States
of America
In the range of
17% by 2020
compared with 2005,
In conformity with anticipated United States energy
and climate legislation, recognizing that final target
will be reported to the secretariat in the light of the
enacted legislation. Pathway set forth in pending
legislation entails 30% reduction by 2025 and 42% by
2030, in line with the goal to reduce by 83% by 2050.
Also assumes other Annex I Parties, as well as more
advanced non-Annex I Parties, associate with the
Copenhagen Accord and submit mitigation action
So, without a new global mitigation agreement
Nations will not commit to
mitigation targets and
timetables that will reduce
stabilize atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 at a
level that will prevent
dangerous climate change
(20 guard rail)
Adaptive capacity of
most if not all sectors
will be exceeded &
expensive
transformation change
of systems will be
required
Australian Government will
only commit to reducing
emissions by five per cent by
2020
Mitigation challenge raises ethical issues that
are major negotiation road blocks
1.
2.
3.
4.
OECD nations have got rich from causing climate change
The poor countries who are least responsible will be the most vulnerable to
climate change impacts
Developing countries and “economies in transition” need economic growth to
alleviate poverty
But BIC countries’ emissions are essential part of mitigation solution
So, the big ethical mitigation issue is ‘who gets
the permissible emissions over the coming
decades’ ?
And, by what principle(s) is this decided?
367 G t C
>
> CO2 emissions > GDP
>
> GDP > greater life expectancy
Climate change impacts fall on those who are least responsible
for the problem
Territory size shows the proportion of the world population living in poverty living there
(calculated by multiplying population by one of two poverty indices)
Source: http://www.worldmapper.org/
Current emissions do not reflect historic responsibilities or future
development needs
2006 Global CO2 emissions (1 000 t per yr) by nation
Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_world_map_deobfuscated.png
Solution?
A negotiating framework for stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases at a 'safe'
concentration (as set by science) by an agreed date

Deals with the total permissible global carbon budget & entire emission
contraction curve

Delivers “climate justice without vengeance”

Enables key equity levels to be explicitly negotiated

Frames subsequent negotiations on details of the “how”
One model: Contraction & Convergence
Source: www.gci.org & www.candcfoundation.com
C&C allocates national carbon budgets on the basis that each person has an equal claim on the
global atmosphere and is therefore entitled to an equal share of the finite carbon budget over a
given period of time.
C&C's finite global carbon budget starts by steadily reducing carbon entitlements for countries
with high per capita emissions whilst increasing entitlements to carbon-frugal nations, until all
countries entitlements converge on the falling global per capita average arising under the
budget by a date agreed [for example by 2030].
After 'convergence', emissions entitlements for all nations will reduce in step until they all reach
a sustainable target amount [e.g. 500 kilos of CO2 per person per annum] again, by whatever
date is agreed [e.g. by 2060]
If new climate science requires, the long-term concentration target can be revised downwards
and the full-term 'C&C event' speeded up to achieve it:
Contraction & Convergence (cont’d)
Financial incentives to avoid fossil fuels could be created by a parallel trade in per capita carbon
entitlements. These become increasingly valuable as they become scarcer and this way, carbonfrugal countries can sell their unused per capita entitlements to the carbon-intensive countries
that may struggle to stay within their falling national entitlements. This trade will generate the
kind of income that will enable developing countries to grow sustainable economies and help
make climate change and poverty history
C&C's carbon market offers 'built-in' financial compensation to developing nations for the
'historic emissions' of industrialized nations, since the earlier the date negotiated for the
international convergence of per capita carbon entitlements, the more carbon rights
industrialized nations will have to buy from developing nations in the early stages
1. Note that units on vertical axis are in GTC
i.e. Giga (billion) tonnes of carbon (not
carbon dioxide)
2. Note also that graph shows both (i)
accumulated carbon emissions as well as
(ii) annual carbon emissions
Source: Global Commons Institute
http://www.gci.org.uk/
Rest of world
China
Using a ‘per capita’ allocation,
total emissions contract
according to the agreed
timetable, and all nations
converge to have the same per
capita emission allocation
Conclusions
UNFCCC is the only “game in town” and without it there is no universal climate change
regulatory framework
Anarchy
Voluntarism
vs
Bi-laterals between rich & poor
Fortuitous aggregate impact of random acts
Charity
And, international law does (kind
of) work…
1. Law-habit – benefits exist
2. Reciprocity – “tit for tat”
3. Supporting mechanisms – e.g. international courts of appeal
4. Enforcement precedents – economic sanctions
5. Lawfulness – consent to be legally bound
6. National implementation – EPBC, Clean Energy Futures Act
Climate change as a scientific discovery brings
new dimension to international relations
By analogy, the pie cannot be made larger
nor can a second pie be cooked…
Therefore, the real politik of political
negotiations must operate within the real
scientifik of what the Earth system can
absorb