Download What`s causing climate change and how can it be fixed

What’s causing climate change
and how can it be fixed?
Dr David Knight
Winchester Action on Climate Change
May 2014
Caveat: The views expressed in this talk are my
own and should not be taken to represent those
of the organisation I work for.
1. What are the physical causes of
climate change?
2. How much must emissions be cut?
3. What are the socioeconomic causes?
4. How to fix climate change?
1,2, and 3 help us answer 4.
My thesis
1. Climate change is probably H. sapiens’
greatest, most urgent and difficult to solve
problem.
2. The Science tells us what urgently needs
doing. However getting leaders to act
vigorously is immensely challenging but
necessary.
1
3. To do this we must counter the lobbies
for the fossil fuel industries, economic
growth, neo-liberal economics and
consumerism.
4. Renewables and energy efficiency can’t
fix the climate on their own. Rapid cuts in
consumption of both fossil fuels and goods
and services are also needed.
First some definitions
Gross domestic product ( GDP) is the
monetary value of all goods and services
consumed within a specified region
excluding imports to that region.
It’s a good measure of consumption but not
of the quality of life or progress towards a
sustainable economy!
Population momentum is
the continuation of population growth
despite falling global fertility rates .
Population growth is like a loaded oil
tanker. It can’t be stopped quickly.
Demographic transition is the process by
which socioeconomic improvements have
lead to an initial decline in mortality
followed by a decline in fertility, and to
negative population growth in some
countries.
Mitigation seeks to tackle the root causes of
climate change. Adaptation, like palliative
care, doesn’t tackle root causes; it only
seeks to moderate negative impacts .
It is difficult to see how H. sapiens can adapt
to an eventual 40 m sea level rise or a 1215°C temperature rise so let’s get on and
tackle the causes.
1. What are the physical
causes of climate change?
Diagram of the greenhouse effect
* What are the principal
GHG’s? *
CO2
Black carbon
Methane
Nitrous oxide N2O
Halocarbon gases
Tropospheric ozone
Gas phase water
not the stratospheric stuff
Relative importance of main GHG’s
Gas/pollutant
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Nitrous oxide
Halocarbons
Tropospheric ozone
Black carbon
% share of heating
effect of rise in
concentration
1990-2005
68.04b
CH4 ↑
4.30 b
after 2005
6.17b
8.22b
0.00c
13.27d e
b
from NOAA data; c No net change in this component over the period but warming effect
since pre-industrial times about 0.04 W m-2 ; d IPCC AR4 / AR5 value
e ? underestimate as excludes open biomass burning
* What are the implications for mitigation of
these differences in heating effect? *
CO2 has had the largest effect of any GHG.
Some non- CO2 emissions also need cutting.
GDP growth contributes all of these GHG
increases.
Immediate health and cost benefits for
reducing black carbon and tropospheric
ozone.
Next section on CO2 sources,
sinks, its rate of removal from the
biosphere, and its atmospheric
levels
*Rank the current size of the
principal CO2 sources*
Oil burning
Gas burning
Gas flaring
Coal burning
Land use
Cement manufacture
*Rank the current size of the
principal CO2 sources*
Oil burning 2
Gas burning 3
Gas flaring 6
Coal burning 1
Land use
4
Cement manufacture 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg
What’s a sink and
what are the major
ones for CO2 ?
Both bath and atmosphere have sources, sinks, and a finite volume
Sources- taps.
Sinks- plughole,
overflow pipe,
bathroom floor!
The flow rates
of sources and
sinks and
physical
dimensions of
bath determine
the level of
water
Sources add
CO2 to the
atmosphere
Sinks take it
Out
-where ?
How fast?
CO2 level
determined
by flow rates
of sinks and
sources and
the fixed
volume of
the
atmosphere .
2012 global carbon balance sheet (BtC year –1 )
Sources:
Burning of fossil fuels 8.6
Land use
1.0
Cement production 0.9
Total sources
10.5
Sinks:
Sea
Land
Total sinks
2.5 *Causing what?*
2.6
5.1
Balance in atmosphere per year 10.5- 5.1 = 5.4
(roughly half anthropogenic emissions).
The final removal of CO2 from the
biosphere (air, land and water)
depends on geologically slow
processes.
e.g. sedimentation of calcium
carbonate shells.
Next , three consequences of this
slowness
First CO2 behaves as a cumulative
poison for our planet (See the
Keeling curve in next slide).
Is the rate of increase accelerating?
How did Mount Pinatubo produce the
only dent in the curve?
Mount
Pinatubo, June
1991
Second. Zero growth in annual
emissions rate would still leave
atmospheric CO2 concentration
increasing rapidly from the currently
damaging 400 ppm as emissions still
>10 BtC a year.
Third. The carbon budget is extremely
small. (Definition in next slide)
Definition .
The global carbon budget for 2013- 2100
is the limit to the cumulative weight of
carbon in BtC that can be discharged to
the atmosphere as CO2 over that period
while still retaining 2 chances in 3 of
avoiding 2oC of warming.
Would you play Russian roulette with these odds? Is 2°C safe?
I use the figure from the 2013 report from the UN intergovernmental panel for
climate change . This is in line with other eminent climate scientists’ calculations.
The Tight Carbon budget
•
•
•
•
•
IPCC AR5 Carbon Budget for 2013 -2100 only 270 BtC.
The 87 year budget exhausted in Ω 20 years B.A.U.
Burning all the global reserves 1 would discharge 800 BtC.
That’s 3 x IPCC carbon budget and about 2-3°C warming.
Global recoverable resources 2 would discharge >12,700
BtC.
• That’s > 50x the carbon budget and at least 12-15°C
warming.
• Much of the surface of the planet would be lethal to
mammals.
1
profitable at current prices . 2 assuming advanced recovery techniques/ higher prices
*How do you react to the tight carbon
budget?*
The Tight Carbon budget
•
•
•
•
•
IPCC AR5 Carbon Budget for 2013 -2100 only 270 BtC.
The 87 year budget exhausted in Ω 20 years B.A.U.
Burning all the global reserves 1 would discharge 800 BtC.
That’s 3 x IPCC carbon budget and about 2-3°C warming.
Global recoverable resources 2 would discharge >12,700
BtC.
• That’s > 50x the carbon budget and at least 12-15°C
warming.
• Much of the surface of the planet would be lethal to
mammals
1
profitable at current prices . 2 assuming advanced recovery techniques/ higher prices
There’s enough fossil fuel in the
ground to fry the planet
Much of the world’s fossil
fuels must remain in the
ground
The fossil fuel companies are
grossly overvalued as much of
their reserves are unburnable
Advanced recovery techniques
(Underground coal gasification,
fracking, coal bed methane) must
be stopped.
Take the fossil fuel companies to
Court for planning to produce
more fossil fuel than is safe to
burn.
Changes 1971- 2009 (IEA data)
Emissions ↑105%
GDP p.c.↑106%
Population↑79%
Energy intensity ↓ 40%
Carbon Intensity ↓ 6% recently ↑; *Why?*
Combining percentages a
Energy intensity and Carbon Intensity ↓ 44%
GDP p.c. and Population
↑269%
Massive imbalance- a massive mountain to climb
a
Formula ((1+a/100)(1+b/100)-1) x 100 where a and b are the percentages to be
combined.
The combined effect of growth of red factors
outstripped improvements in green ones by a
factor of 6.
To reach zero emissions growth requires 6x
improvement in carbon intensity of the economy
just to keep pace with the combined effects of
increase in GDP per capita and population growth.
But zero growth in emissions is not enough .
Emissions must decrease somewhere between 615% per annum to reach the safe 350 ppm CO2
GHG emissions rise with growth in GDP and population; long-standing
improvement trend in decarbonisation of energy reversed.
Source IPCC 2014
“Mitigation”
report
presentation
_
GDP p.c.  2x pop
What’s happened
to energy
intensity and
carbon intensity?
What needs to be done?
A. Tackle fossil fuel CO2 emissions
(sources)
B. Tackle land use change (turning
sources to sinks)
C. Tackle non-CO2 emissions.
How to do it?
How can fossil fuel CO2 emission
be cut?
Kaya provides a useful check list
of 5 intervention points
1
2
3
4
Emissions = Pop. x GDP p.c. x energy intensity x
5
carbon intensity
1. Directly cutting emissions
a. Progressively tightening cap on Emissions
(i) Radically reformed Cap & Trade. Got to be reformed EU ETS has so
fair failed to cut a tonne! (regressive as penalises poor)
(ii) Other personal emissions trading/ allowance schemes have been
suggested.
b. Carbon taxes
They put up price to reduce demand for FF and favour low-carbon
energy in the most cost-effective way .
But :(i) price rise countered by $550 billion in fossil fuel subsidies p.a.
worldwide; (ii) effect on demand unpredictable ; (iii) Regressive .
2.Cutting the population
We need the fastest possible demographic transition.
i. One child policy & compulsory abortion but unacceptable in a
democracy.
ii. Universal low cost contraception . Yes important but targeted at
those with lowest consumption, the poor in LDC’s is blaming the
victims rather than the culprits and ineffective.
iii. Socioeconomic improvements also needed for fast transition. Adult
female literacy and employment; Affordable child care; Abolition of
child labour;↑child survival; Elderly care, independent of children.
But: Population momentum means population policies , though
essential in long term, are too slow to achieve zero growth in
emissions required now or the 80% reduction by 2050. (see next
slide).
2010 UN
predictions
to 2100
2050
At best, 35
years too
late to
contribute
significantly
to needed
fall in
emissions !
4. Cut energy intensity
(i) Improve energy efficiency
No brainer. But limited by: rebound effects ( e.g.
Jevon’s paradox- greater efficiency leads to
greater use; sometimes 100% rebound ); 2nd Law
of Thermodynamics; Law of Diminishing
Returns).
(ii) More efficient materials use.
5. Cut carbon intensity - technologies.
No brainer, essential but…see below
(i) Renewables: including Hydro; Solar (PV; Distributed solar thermal & CSP);
Wind (On/Off Shore); Wave & Tide; Heat pumps; Geothermal ; Some Biomass
sources (not palm oil); Anaerobic digestion of waste (not grain or potatoes).
But additional rather than substitutive until price ↓ coal; low energy density ;
intermittency; need for efficient storage; starting from a low base- 19% of
global final energy use in 2011 excl. wood .
(ii) CHP
(iii) Not natural/shale gas.
(iv) Nuclear: FNB reactors (but N-Weapons proliferation; Huge cost; System
Doubling Time v. slow; waste management; life cycle analysis of carbon
emissions?. Starting from v. low base -1 or 2 operating reactors)
Thermal reactors (As above + Peak Uranium? + only 12.3% of world's
electricity production in 2012.)
(v) CC&S (Planned plant to 2020 would only capture 1% global emissions; no
means of incentivising/financing; retention time in store; no retrofitting;
increase coal consumption by approx 1/3rd; increase cost)
5. Continued : Cut carbon intensity- Non technological
approaches
(i) A progressively constricting cap on fossil fuel use :
Cap & Share, Cap & Dividend could in theory cut emissions at the rate dictated by the
Science. Progress towards adoption in Eire until financial collapse. Not dissimilar scheme
proposed by IEA.
alternately Tradable Energy Quotas
(i) Legal approaches
(i) Sue fossil fuel companies/ coal fired plant constructors for their actions and intentions
to produce more energy than is safe for the planet. A growing movement. Success in
Poland against a proposed coal fired station.
(i) Sue governments for their failure to protect their citizens (Netherlands – flooding risk;
US Our Childrens’ Trust Litigation in every state.
(iii) Disinvest from fossil fuel companies ( Growing movement in American universities).
Conclusion
1. There is no magic bullet
2. The best approach would be a comprehensive package
including:
A tightening cap on fossil fuel use (or emissions)
Transition to zero then negative economic growth
Eventual transition to negative population growth
Massive deployment of lowest carbon energy sources
Increase in energy efficiency
Improve sinks including massive reforestation
Cutting methane, black carbon, N2O and halocarbons
3. Challenge the lobbies that maintain status quo.
4. Use the courts and change the statutes