Download Climate Change Mitigation Possibilities in the Energy

Climate Change Mitigation
Possibilities in the Energy Sector: an
Arctic Perspective
Maria Pettersson
Luleå University of Technology
Department of Social Science
Law Division
[email protected]
Purpose

“Analyse” the interrelation between:


Climate Change, the Climate Regime, Energy and
The Arctic
Questions…


The role of energy/renewable energy in the
climate regime?
National mitigation policies in a regional and
international context: what are the joint mitigation
possibilities in the energy sector?
Energy Sector Mitigation Possibilities

Changes in energy demand?


Reduce consumption
Changes in energy supply:




Changes in the traditional energy mix
Efficiency measures
Introduction of carbon-free energy technology
Remove and sequestrate carbon dioxide
Renewable Energy Support in the
Climate Regime?

UNFCCC



Kyoto Protocol




No explicit reference to renewable energy
Renewable energy technology presumably comprised by the
concept ”environmentally sound technology”
No clear duties with reference to renewable energy
Gentle steering (Art. 2)
Possibilities for far-reaching energy conservation provided
However, the extent to which renewables will be promoted by
the climate regime will depend on the size of the cap…
Arctic Energy Resources & Policies I:
Fossil fuels – OIL




Large recoverable resources (e.g., in Alaska, Russia,
Norway)
Increased accessibility (CC)
Increased environmental pressure (CC)
Non-reasonable mitigation option



Technological development?
The Kyoto cap?
Canada, Norway and the USA:

CC&S programmes
Arctic Energy Resources & Policies II:
Fossil fuels – GAS




Large reserves (Russia, Alaska, Greenland, Norway)
Increased accessibility (CC)
Infrastructural damages (CC)
Favourable mitigation option:


Costs, environmental advantages, convenience, JI+CDM
Policy instrument in force for e.g.,:



CHP (General)
Improved gas turbine technology (Canada)
Leakage decrease (Russia)
Arctic Energy Resources & Policies III:
Carbon-Free Energy
”If history is any guide, resources do not deplete; they
are displaced by new technology that typically leaves
much of the old resource in the ground”
Denny Ellerman, MIT

The development and diffusion of carbon-free
energy technologies requires appropriate
economic and regulatory instruments that
significantly lower the costs associated with them
Arctic Energy Resources & Policies IV:
WIND



Large resources
Infrastructural damage (CC)
Favourable carbon-free option:


Constraints:


Decreasing costs, JI+CDM, remote applications
Location, Grid-connection
Policies & Measures:


Wind power programmes (not Russia & Iceland)
IEA Wind Cooperative Agreement (not Russia & Iceland)
Arctic Energy Resources & Policies V:
WATER


Great resource potential; Extensively built-out
Constraints:


Viable mitigation option?



Significant environmental impacts, high capital costs,
institutional restrictions, public opposition
Small scale hydro
Efficiency measures
Policies & Measures:

Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, USA parties to the IEA
Implementing Agreement on Hydropower
Arctic Energy Resources & Policies VI:
Renewables for the Future?

The Ocean and the Sun:



Current obstacles to diffusion:




Wave- and tidal power
Photovoltaic systems
High capital costs & extensive construction time (tidal)
Low potential (wave)
Narrow application (photovoltaic)
Policies & Measures:


IEA Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems
Support, R&D programmes etc. (Denmark, Norway, USA)
Conclusions
Further exploitation of Arctic energy resources a
possible outcome of:



Climate change
The climate regime
National energy policies
Quantified emission reduction targets imply:
Increased costs for fossil fuels
 Improved economic potential for carbon-free options

Considerable energy related mitigation
possibilities
Conclusions cont.

In rough outline the energy related mitigation
strategies are virtually similar:




Energy efficiency
Fuel switching
Increased proportion of renewables etc.
On closer inspection however…

Social and resource prerequisites imply very different
approaches  in perfect keeping with the idea behind the
climate regime…
Joint mitigation possibilities?
”Joint Arctic Forces against climate
change: an energy sector approach”?

In addition to collaboration on the basis of
administrative borders (e.g., EU ETS)
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO LAUNCH
COOPERATION ASSOCIATIONS ON THE
BASIS OF E.G., CLIMATE ZONES OR
”ENVIRONMENTAL BORDERS”?
Could it be done in the Arctic?