Download Slide 1 - climateknowledge.org

Climate Change: The Move to Action
(AOSS 480 // NRE 480)
Richard B. Rood
Cell: 301-526-8572
2525 Space Research Building (North Campus)
[email protected]
http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/people/rbrood
Winter 2012
March 15, 2012
Class News
• Ctools site: AOSS_SNRE_480_001_W12
• 2008 and 2010 Class On Line:
– http://climateknowledge.org/classes/index.php
/Climate_Change:_The_Move_to_Action
• Projects:
– In Class Review 22 March 2012: Each group should prepare
about a 15 minute 5 – 10 viewgraphs of status of project.
Projects will be in different stages, but should have a good idea
of the scope and where you are going. This will be a time get
some input and refine and focus.
– This need not be polished, but should represent vision, structure,
and some essential elements of knowledge.
Projects
• Think about some linkages
– Regional focus on Great Lakes
– City focus on Houghton
– University: Get Michigan Tech Role in the
mix?
• Interview Guy Meadows?
The Current Climate (Released Monthly)
• Climate Monitoring at National Climatic
Data Center.
– http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
• State of the Climate: Global
Wedges on the Web
• Carbon Mitigation Initiative @ Princeton
University
Today
• Policy Interface 2
– Global Mitigation
• Policy Interface 3
– State and Local
• Wedges: A pragmatic approach?
The Official Policy is:
• United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
– Framework Convention on Climate Change
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
2009
2007
IPCC
established
Framework
Convention
(UNFCCC)
Kyoto
Protocol
Copenhagen
Accord
Scientific
assessment
Non-binding
aim
Binding
emissions
target
Keep warming
less than 2 C
Dangerous climate change?
• What is dangerous?
Stern Report: Influential: Useful for thinking about problem
• 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.
Emissions / Cap Interface between Science and Policy
• 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
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
Link to speech
Data and more information
Kyoto Protocol followed 1995 assessments
• 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
Beyond 2012
• Conference of Parties, Copenhagen 2009
• Copenhagen Accord
• Canada withdrew this year.
• Nuclear disaster in Japan trumped all of
the Japanese CO2 reduction.
Today
• Policy Interface 2
– Global Mitigation
• Policy Interface 3
– State and Local
• Wedges: A pragmatic approach?
Scales: Time scale and “spatial” scale
GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES
LOCAL POLICY
(ADAPTATION)
SURFACE WARMING
GLOBAL POLICY
(MITIGATION)
GREEN HOUSE GAS INCREASE
Scale
• What is the best scale to measure vulnerability
and adaptive capacity?
– National:
• inform states on needed policy response; allow for better
decision making; allows for comparison of differential
vulnerability
– Regional
• Impacts are likely not to be defined by national borders
– Local
• Ground truth
• Allows for the understanding of the local factors that mediate
sensitivity and resilience
Thanks to Maria Carmen Lemos
Regional based Initiatives
• Changing very rapidly
Scales of Policy: U.S.
–Pew: State-based Initiatives (Update, 2007)
–Pew: State and Region Climate Action
States with Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets (October 31, 2011)
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Interactive Map
States with Climate Action Plans
(October 31, 2011)
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Interactive Map
Motivations for State Activity
• Economics
– States (and cities) are very aggressive at
promoting policy that they perceive as offering
economic advantage.
– Branding: To attract, for instance, the
“creative class”
• Belief and Culture
– Reflection of political constituencies
States can be viewed as:
(from Rabe (2006)) What has changed?
• Hostile to climate change policy
– Michigan (Auto industry, manufacturing)
– Colorado (coal and energy)
• Stealth interest?
– Texas (aggressive renewable portfolio)
– Nebraska (sequestration site)
• Out in front
– California (Water, water, water?)
– Northeast alliance
Policy: Regional and State and Local
• California Climate Change
• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
• United Conference of Mayors
– U.S. Mayors: Climate Protection Agreement
• Map of US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
• Cool Cities
Policy: Regional and State and Local
• Local Governments for Sustainability
– International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI)
– ICLEI’s CO2 Reduction / Climate
• National Governors Association (NGA)
– NGA Transportation and Land Use
– NGA Environmental Best Practices
Today
• Policy Interface 2
– Global Mitigation
• Policy Interface 3
– State and Local
• Wedges: A pragmatic approach?
Pielke Jr. argues
• The need for technology to make solutions
possible.
• Inequity of wealth, access to basic resources,
desire for economic growth makes energy use
an imperative
• Must go
– From, we use too much energy, fossil fuels are cheap
– To, we need more energy, fossil fuels are expensive
What tools do we have to reduce emissions?
Factor
Lever
Approach to Policy
P
Population
Less people
Population management
GDP/P
GDP per capita
Smaller economy
Limit generation of wealth
TE/GDP
Energy intensity
Increase efficiency
Do same or more with less energy
Carbon intensity
Switch energy sources
Generate energy with less emissions
C/TE
Carbon emissions = C =
P * GDP
-----P
*
TE
---GDP
* C
---TE
GDP Technology
From R. Pielke Jr. The Climate Fix
A global perspective on energy and climate
To achieve stabilization at a 2°C warming, we would need
to install ~900 ± 500 MW [mega-watts] of carbon
emissions-free power generating capacity each day over
the next 50 years. This is roughly the equivalent of a
large carbon emissions-free power plant becoming
functional somewhere in the world every day. In many
scenarios, this pace accelerates after mid-century. . .
even stabilization at a 4°C warming would require
installation of 410 MW of carbon emissions-free energy
capacity each day.
Caldeira et al. 2003
Practical Response Space
Past Emissions
Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative
The Stabilization Triangle
Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative
The Wedge Concept
Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative
Stabilization (2006)
Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative
CO2 stabilization trajectory (2006)
• Stabilize at < 550 ppm.
Pre-industrial: 275 ppm,
current: 385 ppm.
• Need 7 ‘wedges’ of
prevented CO2 emissions.
Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative
McKinsey 2007
Projects
Use of climate information
• Research on the use of climate knowledge
states that for successful projects, for
example:
– Co-development / Co-generation
– Trust
– Narratives
– Scale
• Spatial
• Temporal
Lemos and Morehouse, 2005
Projects
• Broad subjects and teams defined
• Meeting 1 with Rood
– Now to early March: Project vision and goals
• Meeting 2 with Rood
– Mid to late March: Progress report, refinement of goals if needed
• Class review
– Short, informal presentation, external review and possible
coordination
• Oral Presentation: April 10 and 12
• Final written report: April 25
Project Teams
• Education / Denial
– Allison Caine
– Nayiri Haroutunian
– Elizabeth McBride
– Michelle Reicher
Project Teams
• Regional
– Emily Basham
– Catherine Kent
– Sarah Schwimmer
– James Toth
– Nicholas Fantin
Project Teams
• City
– Jian Wei Ang
– Erin Dagg
– Caroline Kinstle
– Heather Lucier
Project Teams
• University
– Nathan Hamet
– Adam Schneider
– Jillian Talaski
– Victor Vardan
glisaclimate.org
• Goal to facilitate problem solving
– Based on class experience
– Support narratives
– Build templates for problem solving
Approach to Problem Solving
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.
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
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.
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
Structure of Problem Solving
(http://glisaclimate.org/home )
Complexity challenges disciplinary intuition
• The details of the problem often de-correlate
pieces of the problem.
– What do I mean? Think about heat waves?
• 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
Knowledge Generation
Reduction
Disciplinary
Problem Solving
Unification
Integration