Download Slide 1 - climateknowledge.org

Climate Change: The Move to Action
(AOSS 480 // NRE 480)
Richard B. Rood
734-647-3530
2525 Space Research Building (North Campus)
[email protected]
http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/people/rbrood
Winter 2010
March 30, 2010
Class News
• Ctools site: AOSS 480 001 W10
• On Line: 2008 Class
– Reference list from course
• Rood Blog Data Base
Projects
• Final presentation discussion;
– April 20 last day of class
• Summary lecture discussion
– How to talk science?
– Climate intertwined with everything?
• After class meetings
–
–
–
–
3/30: Transportation
4/1: Efficiency, New York Utility
4/6: Near-term solutions
4/8: Michigan’s response
Events
• Jim Hansen
Global Climate Change What Must We Do Now?
– April 6, 2010
– Blau Auditorium, Ross School of Business,
– Time: 4:00 - 5:30, Reception following
Readings on Local Servers
– Assigned
• Stern Report: Executive Summary
– Foundational
• Stern Review: Primary Web Page
– Recommended
• Nordhaus: Criticism of Stern Report
• Tol and Yohe: Deconstruction of Stern Report
From Last Time
• Introduced a set of “big” issues
–
–
–
–
–
–
Energy summary
Atmospheric stabilization
Role of efficiency
Divide between oil consumers and oil producers
Divide between rich and poor
Motivation to respond
• Policy response
• Scientific uncertainty and policy
• Policy Catalysts
Science, Mitigation, Adaptation Framework
It’s not an either / or argument.
Adaptation is responding to changes that might occur from added CO2
Mitigation is controlling the amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere.
Some definitions
• Mitigation: The notion of limiting or controlling
emissions of greenhouse gases so that the total
accumulation is limited.
• Adaptation: The notion of making changes in the
way we do things to adapt to changes in climate.
• Resilience: The ability to adapt.
• Geo-engineering: The notion that we can
manage the balance of total energy of the
atmosphere, ocean, ice, and land to yield a
stable climate in the presence of changing
greenhouse gases.
Thinking about ADAPTATION
• Adaptation: What people might do to reduce harm of climate
change, or make themselves best able to take advantage of climate
change.
– Autonomous that people do by themselves
– Can be encouraged by public policy
• Command and control tell you to do it
• Incentives
• Subsidies
– Can be anticipatory or reactive
• Adaptation is local; it is self help.
• Adaptation has short time constants - at least compared to
mitigation  Hence people see the need to pay for it.
• Some amount of autonomous-reactive adaptation will take place.
– Moving villages in Alaska
Thinking about MITIGATION
• Mitigation: Things we do to reduce greenhouse
gases
– Reduce emissions
– Increase sinks
•
•
•
•
Mitigation is for the global good
Mitigation has slow time constants
Mitigation is anticipatory policy
This is the “second” environmental problem we
have faced with a global flavor.
– Ozone is the first one. Is this a good model?
Some Mitigation-Adaptation considerations
• Those who are rich and technologically advanced generally favor
adaptation; they feel they can handle it
– Plus, technology will continue to make fossil fuel cheap, but with
great(er) release of CO2
• Those who are poor and less technologically advanced generally
advocate mitigation and sharing of adaptation technology
• Emission scenarios “don’t matter” for the next 30-50 years.
• There are a lot of arguments, based on economics, that lead
towards adaptation
– Mitigation always looks expensive, perhaps economically risky, on the
time scale of 50 years.
• Adaptation looks easier because we will know more
• This will remain true as long as the consequences seem incremental and
modest
– The Innovators Dilemma, evolution vs revolution?
Responses to the Climate Change Problem
Autonomous/
Individual
Policy/
Societal
Reactive
Anticipatory
Adaptation
Mitigation
The previous viewgraphs have introduced
“granularity”
• This is a classic short-term versus long-term
problem.
– Ethics
– Economics
– Reaction versus anticipation
• Similarly, regional versus global
• Rich and poor
• Competing approaches
– Mitigation versus adaptation
– Transportation versus Electrical Generation
– This versus that
Granularity
• No matter how we cut through this
problem we come to the conclusion that
there is a lot of granularity within the
problem. This granularity represents
complexity, which must be used to develop
a portfolio of solutions rather than to
classify the problem as intractable.
What is short-term and long-term?
Pose that time scales for addressing climate
change as a society are best defined by human
dimensions. Length of infrastructure investment,
accumulation of wealth over a lifetime, ...
LONG
SHORT
Election
time scales
ENERGY SECURITY
CLIMATE CHANGE
ECONOMY
0 years
25 years
There are short-term issues
important to climate change.
50 years
75 years
100 years
We arrive at levels of granularity
WEALTH
Need to introduce spatial scales as well
Sandvik: Wealth and Climate Change
LOCAL
TEMPORAL
NEAR-TERM
LONG-TERM
GLOBAL
SPATIAL
Small scales inform large scales.
Large scales inform small scales.
Complexity challenges disciplinary intuition
• The details of the problem often de-correlate
pieces of the problem.
• This challenges the intuition of disciplined-based
experts, and the ability to generalize.
– For example --- Detroit is like Chicago.
• The consideration of the system as a whole
causes tensions – trade offs - optimization
Problem Solving
Knowledge Generation
Reduction
Disciplinary
Unification
Integration
Policy
• A natural reaction to this situation is to look
to government, to the development of
policy to address the problems that we are
faced with.
A Premise
• Climate change problem cannot be solved
in isolation.
• Requires integration with all elements of
society.
– Requires identification of reasons to motivate
us to take action
• Apparent benefit
• Excess Risk
Climate Science-Policy Relation
CLIMATE SCIENCE
UNCERTAINTY
PROMOTES / CONVERGENCE
OPPOSES / DIVERGENCE
KNOWLEDGE
POLICY
The need for “management”
Return to the Energy-Climate Problem
• We need to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, especially carbon dioxide,
while at the same time maintaining energy
production and economic stability.
NEED CARBON POLICY
• We need a “carbon policy” which is integrated
with energy policy.
– Some alternative energy sources don’t do much for
reducing carbon dioxide in atmosphere.
– Coal is our easy energy security
• Without sequestration (carbon removal), coal makes the
problem worse.
• Concern: Quest for energy security-national
security, economic stability, demand for cheap
energy will reduce priority we give to reduction
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Basic Management
• If there is a goal which you must meet,
then you need to manage towards than
goal.
– If the goal is critical to success,
– If the goal must be met on some schedule,
Some Basic Management Tenets
WHERE
WE ARE
NOW
WHERE
WE ARE
GOING
WE WILL GET DESIRED RESULT AS A
BENEFIT OF WHERE WE ARE GOING.
THIS APPROACH INCREASES RISK OF
NOT GETTING THE DESIRED RESULT,
BECAUSE THE “COST” OF DESIRED
RESULT IS NEVER INTEGRATED INTO
THE PROCESS
DESIRED
RESULT
TRYING TO BE CLEAR
WHERE
WE ARE
NOW
ENERGY
SECURITY
WE WILL GET REDUCED CARBON FROM QUEST
FOR ENERGY SECURITY – ENERGY POLICY.
CARBON REDUCTION DOES NOT
AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW FROM SOLVING
THE ENERGY PROBLEM. CARBON
REDUCTION ALSO NEEDS TO BE A
REQUIREMENT  NEED CARBON POLICY
CARBON
REDUCTION
Carbon Policy
• Or perhaps we need “climate policy” and
“climate management.”
– We need to consciously take responsibility for
our energy waste.
A Management Idea
The first and
largest
improvements
come from a
plan, an
approach to the
problem, and
identifying
mistakes early
This axis is ability to target cost, quality, time
Policy: Global and Local
GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES
LOCAL POLICY
(ADAPTATION)
SURFACE WARMING
GLOBAL POLICY
(MITIGATION)
GREEN HOUSE GAS INCREASE
Some basics of policy response
• An important part of the policy response is
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(The assessment process: A formal interface)
How is this
information
evaluated,
integrated and
transmitted to
policymakers?
Published in refereed
literature
IPCC CLIMATE
REPORTS
2001
2007
What we know + uncertainty
U.S. Climate Change Study
Program
U.S. National Assessment
National Academy of Sciences
Review by
government officials
// Final language //
All agree
Scientist-authors are
nominated by
governments to
assess the state of
the science
Draft documents are
reviewed by experts
who did NOT write
the draft. // Open
review as well
Draft revised
The Official Policy is:
• United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
– Framework Convention on Climate Change
What is COP?
• COP is the Conference of Parties
– Parties are those countries who have signed
the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. There are 192 signatories.
• Essential Background UNFCCC
Michigan Observer Status
• Framework Convention Parties and
Observers
– Parties are signatories of Framework
Convention
– Observers are invited to the meeting for
participation, transparency, and accountability
• United Nations Representatives
• Intergovernmental Organizations
• Non-governmental Organizations
– Virtual Participation
Framework Convention on Climate Change
(US in part of this.)
• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(1992, non-binding, voluntary, 192 signers)
– Reduce CO2 Emissions in 2000 to 1990 levels
– Inventories of greenhouse gas emissions
– Mitigate Climate Change
• Mid-1990’s
– No reduction in emissions
– Evidence of warming and impacts
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Development of International Approach to Climate Change
1988
1992
1995
1997
2001
IPCC
established
Framework
Convention
(UNFCCC)
Kyoto
Protocol
Scientific
assessment
Non-binding
aim
Binding
emissions
target
2007
?????
Dangerous climate change?
• What is dangerous?
Stern Report
• Draws on recent science which points to
‘significant risks of temperature increases above
5°C under business-as-usual by the early part of
the next century’ — other studies typically have
focused on increases of 2–3°C.
• Treats aversion to risk explicitly.
• Adopts low pure time discount rates to give
future generations equal weight.
• Takes account of the disproportionate impacts
on poor regions.
Dangerous climate change?
Stern, 2006
Stern Report
• Considered a radical revision of climate change
economics.
– If we don’t act now it will cost between 5% and 20%
of gross domestic product (an aggregate measure of
economy.)
• Stands in contrast to many studies that usually
come to numbers of closer to 1%
– The idea that initiation of a policy with a slow growth
rate will have little impact on the economy or
environment in the beginning, but will ultimately
become important when the nature of expenditures is
more clear.
Dangerous climate change?
Stern, 2006
Some carry away messages
• Determine what is a tolerable ceiling for carbon
dioxide.
- Gives cap for a cap and trade system.
- Tolerable ceilings have been posed as between 450
and 550 ppm.
- Ice sheet melting and sea level?
- Oceanic circulation / The Gulf Stream?
- Ocean acidification?
- Determine a tolerable measure of increased
temperature
- Copenhagen Accord (2009)  2o C
Dangerous climate change?
Stern, 2006
Back to Stabilization
Basic constraint on carbon policy
350.org
Basic constraint on carbon policy
Stabilizing concentrations
Means Action Now …
Ceiling (ppmv)
350
450
550
650
750
Start Date
Too
late
2007
2013
2018
2023
Max Emission
6.0
8.0
9.7
11.4
12.5
2005
2011
2033
2049
2062
Max Year
1950 – 1.8 tons // 1990 – 5.8 tons // 2000 – 6.5 tons
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
1992 Convention Commitments
• All Parties agree to:
4.1.b. Mitigate emissions and enhance sinks
4.1.c. Promote technology development and
transfer
4.1.e. Cooperate on research and observation
• Developed Countries’ aim to return emissions to
1990 levels by the end of the century
Assessment
• Mid-1990’s
– No reduction in emissions
– Evidence of warming and impacts
• 2001
– No reduction in emissions
– Evidence of warming and impacts
• 2007
– No reduction in emissions
– Evidence of warming and impacts
Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
“This generation
has altered the
composition of the
atmosphere on a
global scale
through…a steady
increase in carbon
dioxide from the
burning of fossil
fuels.”
--Lyndon Johnson
Special Message
to Congress,
1965
Data and more information
Kyoto Protocol followed 1995 assessments
• Why is the Kyoto Protocol still relevant?
Kyoto Protocol
• Kyoto Protocol (December, 1997, binding
limits on or reduction of emissions)
– Must be signed (155 signers (?186)) and
ratified
• At least 55 countries
• That represent 55 % or more of emissions
– Open for signatures on March 16, 1998
– Went into effect on February 16, 2005
• After Russia signed and ratified
Kyoto Protocol Requirements
• Developed nations reduce their emissions 5.2% below 1990
emissions
– Reduction (increases) vary across countries
– Relaxed a little over the years to attract signers
– (Treaty: U.S. 7% reduction: Actual: 12% higher in 2004, 30% by 2012)
• Addresses “six” greenhouse gases (CO2, Methane CH4, Nitrous
Oxide N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur
hexafluoride)
• Commitment period 2008-2012
• Set of other activities
–
–
–
–
Improve “local emission factors”
Inventories of emissions and sinks
Mitigation and adaptation plans
Environmentally sound technology diffusion to developing nations
Kyoto Protocol Issues
• Amount and distribution for limits and
reductions
• What greenhouse gases to include
• Developing countries in or out of emission
requirements
• Trading, market-based mechanisms
• Role of removing greenhouse gases
Kyoto Protocol: Important Add ons
• Market-based mechanisms
– Emissions trading
– Joint implementation
– Clean development mechanisms
• “Common but differentiated
responsibilities”
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Flexibility in Achieving Targets
• “What” flexibility
– Targets apply to CO2-equivalent emissions
of basket of six GHGs
– Can use carbon sinks (e.g. forests) as
offsets
• “When” flexibility
– Five-year commitment period
– Banking
• “Where” flexibility
– Market mechanisms: ET, JI, CDM
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Bubbles (Art. 4)
– Any group of Annex I countries may pool
emissions targets
German Target
Greek
Target
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Emissions trading (Art. 17)
– Developed countries and firms can
trade parts of their “assigned amounts”
of emissions
– Successfully used in US in sulfur dioxide
program
US
AAU
Norway
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Joint implementation (JI) (Art. 6)
– One Annex I country undertakes a project
in another country to reduce emissions or
enhance sinks
– The project generates an “emission
reduction unit,” which can be transferred
– ERUs subtracted from transferor’s
assigned amount and added to
transferee’s assigned amount
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Joint Implementation (Art. 6)
US
ERU
Norway
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Mechanisms:
• Clean Development Mechanism (Art.
12)
– Annex I party can undertake mitigation project
in developing country
– Win-win approaches
• Developing countries get climate-friendly technology
• Projects generate “certified emission reductions”
(CERs), which developed countries can use to meet
emission targets
US
CER
India
Thanks to Rosina Bierbaum
Kyoto Protocol:
Issues with Market-based Mechanisms
• Trading with countries who do not have
emission limits / non-ratifying countries
• Integrity in the trading market
– “false” credits
– Reporting
– Measurements
– Verifying
“Flaws” in Kyoto Protocol
• Participation of Developing Countries
– Large populations, large projected growth
• Participation of the United States
– 25 % of greenhouse gas emissions
• Other “flaws”
– Does not go far enough: Emission goals don’t
adequately mitigate dangerous climate
change
– 2008-2012 commitment period – then what?
Elements of “U.S. Position”
• Will not be ratified unless developing countries
are included in emission limits
• Continuing concerns
– Impact on economic growth and gross national
product
• CO2, currently, directly related to enterprise, economy …
– Robustness of scientific justification and observations
– Winners outweigh losers
• Policy defines winners and losers in a different way.
Issues of implementation
• Rules that govern compliance
• The rules of development and transfer of
cleaner, low emission, technologies
• The role of carbon sinks: trees, removal
technology, ….
• The reward/punishment for those who take
the initiative to address their emissions
unilaterally
Constituencies in the community
• “G-77” and China: ~130 developing countries,
work by consensus (generally represent The
Africa Group)
– Economic development and emission limits
– Sell their potential carbon credits for profit
• The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)
– Tightest control on global emissions
• Organization of Petroleum Export Countries
(OPEC)
– Protection of their economic well being
Constituencies in the community
• European Union (EU)
– Coordinated position as environmental leader with
very ambitious emission reduction goals
• Japan, U.S., Switzerland, Canada, Australia,
Norway, New Zealand (JUSSCANNZ)
– Non-EU developed countries
– Cost of tackling the climate problem
• U.S., Canada, Australia: Low-efficiency energy use
• Japan, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand: High-efficiency
energy use
Constituencies in the community
• Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGO)
–
–
–
–
Accept climate change science
Differ on acceptance of market-based mechanisms
Differ on role of businesses in tackling climate problem
Differ on role of geo-engineering
• Business and Industry Non-Governmental Organizations (BINGO)
– “Green” companies: Accept science and see business advantage or
necessity
– Middle ground: Accept science and cautious approach to mitigation
– “Gray” companies: Mostly U.S. fossil-fuel based industries: Question
science and impact, Cost of mitigation outweighs benefits
• Global Climate Coalition
• Climate Council
– Relationship with OPEC?
Beyond 2012
• Pew: International Climate Efforts Beyond
2012: Report of the Climate Dialogue at
Pocantico
– This is a report published by Pew of a
collection of experts on climate change
– It is very soft in its recommendations
• Like keep the international community together
• Identification of what is important in any viable
treaty
• Important problem, keep international attention
Beyond 2012
• Conference of Parties, Copenhagen 2009
• Copenhagen Accord