* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Do we need a global agreement to solve the climate change problem?
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate-friendly gardening wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Emissions trading wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Carbon governance in England wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Climate Change conference wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Paris Agreement wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
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