Download PowerPoint Presentation - Climate Science & Policy

Climate Science and Policy
Dr. Lisa R. Shaffer
Assistant Director
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
March 2006
What is climate change?
•
•
Climate change today is due to natural
variability and its interaction with human
activities.
Global warming is one manifestation of human
impacts on the earth’s climate.
• Global warming is connected to other aspects of
climate change, such as the frequency and strength
of severe weather events (storms, floods, droughts),
melting of sea ice, sea level rise,…
2
The Greenhouse Effect
Solar radiation
Long-wave
radiation
Global mean surface temperatures have increased
Temperatures of the land and oceans have mostly increased
Climate policy can mean many things
•
•
•
•
•
•
Science policy
Technology policy
Information policy
Energy policy
Economic policy
Foreign policy
8
What have we done?
•
Internationally:
• Created an international scientific assessment
• Negotiated an international treaty
• Committed most of the industrialized world to
mandatory reductions in GHG emissions
•
US:
• Refused to submit international treaty for ratification
• Proposed voluntary programs to reduce GHG
intensity, lowering rate of growth of emissions
•
Non-government
• Corporate, regional, local, faith-based initiatives
9
How did climate change arrive near the
top of the international agenda?
It started with objective scientific
assessment.
[Science Policy]
•
Established by the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) in 1988.
•
Open to all governments belonging to UNEP and WMO.
Currently 192 countries are members.
http://www.ipcc.ch
IPCC:
•
•
•
•
•
IPCC does not carry out research or monitor climate
Maintains rigorous procedures for assessing the
progress in understanding climate change.
Assessments are based mainly on already published,
peer reviewed literature.
Integrates scientific and governmental review
Characterizes the scientific consensus relating to key
policy statements
Sustains a framework for repeated assessments
IPCC Leadership - International and Diverse
IPCC policy requires co-chairs from industrialized and
developing countries for each working group
Chairman from India; Vice Chairs - Kenya, Sri Lanka, Russia
Working Group Co-Chairs
WG1 (Science) – China and US
WG2 (Vulnerability & Adaptation) – Argentina and UK
WG3 (Mitigation) – Sierra Leone and Netherlands
This approach builds local scientific capacity around
the world and enables governments to turn to local
scientific experts to interpret or verify IPCC findings
and offer advice
13
Evolution of International Assessments
1995 IPCC Summary for Policymakers:
“The balance of evidence suggests a
discernible human influence on
global climate.”
14
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
Summary for Policymakers (SPM)
Drafted by a team of 59
Approved ‘sentence by sentence’
by WGI plenary (99 Governments and 45
scientists)
14 chapters
881 pages
120 Lead Authors
515 Contributing Authors
4621 References quoted
15
16
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change reported in 2001:
“There is new and stronger
evidence that most of the
warming observed over the last
50 years is attributable to human
activities.”
17
What have we done?
•
1992: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
signed at the Rio Earth Summit by George H.W. Bush, and ratified by 175
countries
•
•
Sets “ultimate objective” of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (humaninduced) interference with the climate system” (without defining what these
concentrations would be.)
“Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow
ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production
is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a
sustainable manner.”
18
UNFCCC
•
•
•
•
Got climate change onto the international political
agenda
Non-binding, vague language (what is a safe level of
concentrations?)
Established annual Conferences of the Parties to the
Framework Convention (COP-n) to develop more
detailed implementation arrangements
Modeled after Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting
substances
19
Kyoto Protocol
•
•
•
A supplemental agreement to the UNFCCC - signed at
COP-3 by 84 countries, including the US.
Entered into force in Feb. 2005 after ratification by 55
Parties, including those accounting for at least 55% of
CO2 emissions in 1990. US has not ratified.
Establishes legally binding targets for industrialized
countries (Annex 1) totaling at least 5% below 1990
levels by 2008-2012 (the first “commitment period”).
 Individual targets ranged from –8% for EU to +10% for
Iceland
 For US: 7% reduction
20
Kyoto (continued)
•
•
•
Targets based on political negotiation and compromise,
not rigorous science.
Covers 6 gases: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Countries agreed to use “policies and measures” to
achieve these reductions. Specific mention of land use,
land cover change and forestry as potential “sinks”
21
The US Situation
•
How does the US Government commit to an
international treaty?
• US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2
“The President …shall have Power, by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of
the Senators present concur …”
•
The US signed the Kyoto Protocol but it has not been
ratified by the Senate.
22
The US Position
President Bush committed the United States to an ambitious climate
change strategy that will reduce domestic greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions relative to the size of the American economy. The United
States will achieve this goal by cutting its GHG intensity -- how much it
emits per unit of economic activity -- by 18% over the next 10 years.
This strategy will set America on a path to slow the growth of
greenhouse gas emissions, and -- as the science justifies -- to stop,
and then reverse that growth. … the United States' strategy
emphasizes international cooperation and promotes working with other
nations to develop an efficient and coordinated response to global
climate change. … the United States is advancing a pro-growth, prodevelopment approach to addressing this important global challenge.
-- State Department website
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/
-- emphasis added
23
24
CO2 emissions 2002 - top 20
RANK NATION
CO2_TOT
CO2_CAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1592382
957249
390439
332677
327939
219270
148129
140915
121578
117989
104543
100358
98153
97096
94110
92794
85492
83599
83513
82998
5.52
0.74
2.69
0.32
2.57
2.66
2.50
4.49
2.55
2.05
1.01
1.69
1.50
4.94
2.07
4.22
0.49
1.73
0.39
2.03
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CHINA (MAINLAND)
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
INDIA
JAPAN
GERMANY
UNITED KINGDOM
CANADA
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
ITALY (INCLUDING SAN MARINO)
MEXICO
FRANCE (INCLUDING MONACO)
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AFRICA
SAUDI ARABIA
BRAZIL
UKRAINE
INDONESIA
SPAIN
25
Congress is trying
•
•
•
•
•
105th Congress (1997-98): 7 climate bills introduced
107th Congress (2001-2002): over 80
Democratic and Republican Parties
Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) introduced
a bill in January 2003 setting a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions
and allowing companies to buy and sell emission credits.
• “When this bill was considered by the Senate during the 108th
Congress, it received a strong 43 votes in initial support. Senators
Lieberman and McCain are working to bring the reintroduced
legislation back to the Senate floor for another vote as soon as
possible.” (Lieberman’s website)
U.S. Representatives Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and John W. Olver (D-MA)
introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 30, 2004
to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, while providing for market-based
trading of emission allowances. Like the Lieberman-McCain bill, the
Gilchrest-Olver bill would, by 2010, cap the aggregate emissions of the
electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic
sectors at the 2000 level.
26
Kyoto
There is virtually no dispute that full
implementation of Kyoto will have little impact
on greenhouse gas concentrations.
Proponents say Kyoto still a good first step and
establishes principles and a process that could
build to more significant commitments later
Doubters say the economic costs of compliance
outweigh the benefits to society.
Others suggest that it’s a distraction from
undertaking the fundamental modifications in
world economic practice that will be required.
27
Acting locally
States, local communities,
regions, and private companies
are taking action despite the
lack of international or national
agreement on how to address
climate change.
28
Some are listening
San Diego Climate Change Program
San Diego set a goal to reduce its greenhouse gases by
6.5 million tons per year. The city has improved energy
efficiency in city buildings and facilities, installed solar
photovoltaics on city facilities that are currently
producing 18 megawatts of renewable energy
generation, implemented waste reduction and landfill
gas recovery and begun a partnership with 22 local
businesses to develop emission reduction policies. An
award-winning compost program and citywide curbside
recycling program have cut close to 800,000 tons of
waste while converting the city's refuse truck fleet to
liquefied natural gas has cut nearly 3,000 tons of CO
each year.
Nancy Skinner, Union Tribune, May 30, 2005
30
California energy
use and
emissions
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Energy use per person
Change in emissions 1990 - 1999
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer: "Global warming threatens our
health, our economy, our natural
resources, and our children's future. It
is clear we must act."
Climate change is a greater threat to
the world than terrorism, argues Sir
David King, chief science adviser to
Prime Minister Tony Blair: "Delaying
action for a decade, or even just years,
is not a serious option."
… many companies that have cut emissions
have discovered, often to their surprise, that
it saves money and spurs development of
innovative technologies. "It's impossible to
find a company that has acted and has not
found benefits," says Michael Northrop, cocreator of the Climate Group, a coalition of
companies and governments set up to
share such success stories.
Amory Lovins and Policy
Business Week AUGUST 23, 2004
•
Perhaps the most vital single reform would be to change
the way distribution utilities form retail prices. In 48
states [all but Oregon and California], utilities are
rewarded for selling you more electricity and gas, but
penalized for helping you save it to cut your bills. This is
nuts, and remedies are well proven, but they're not on
the policy agenda.
[Regulatory, Energy Policy]
33
Reporting on emissions
The Impact of California’s Actions
Based on 1998 data, a 20% reduction in GHG
emissions from California would be greater than the
total emissions from individual countries like Austria,
Chile, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg,
Finland, and Portugal.
California has the 6th largest economy in the world. What
happens here, matters!
34
Climate Change as a Development Challenge
“We also need to place climate change and its impacts
into the mainstream of our economic policies,
development projects, and international aid efforts.
Recent work by the OECD shows, for example, that a
very significant percentage of the official aid to
developing countries flows towards sectors that are
vulnerable to climate change. Yet development aid
programmes, as well as national development and
sectoral plans, typically pay little or no attention to
climate change considerations…”
OECD Observer, Dec 2004/Jan 2005
OECD Dep. Secretary General
35
How you ask the question matters
•
What is the goal of a “climate policy?”
• Reducing the rate of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions?
• Stabilizing concentrations of GHGs?
• Being able to anticipate impacts of climate change
and plan adaptation or mitigation?
• Protecting the economy from potential harm as a
result of GHG strategies?
• Maximizing economic opportunities from new “green”
technologies?
36
How you ask the question matters
•
What is the goal of a “climate policy?”
• Enhancing foreign policy leadership
• Strengthening national security by reducing
environmental stress in unstable or vulnerable areas
(primarily developing countries)
• Maximizing budgets for environmental science
research and technology
• Improving public perceptions
• Advancing basic knowledge of how the climate
system functions
37
Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s role
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research on fundamental climate processes
Contribute to Global Earth Observing System
Develop technology for earth observations
Make regionally-specific forecasts of climate
variability and impacts
Participate in IPCC assessments
Train students for careers in research and as
practitioners and policy-makers
38
What can you do?
•
Reduce personal consumption and emissions
•
•
•
•
•
Walk/drive/bike
Waste/recycling
Turn off lights and appliances
Purchase “green” products
Increase and protect emissions “sinks”
• Plant trees, protect green spaces
• Buy food from “green” producers (e.g., “no till” agriculture)
•
Tell people you care:
• Vote, work on campaigns, run for office
• Write and speak to decision-makers - express your values
• Letters to the editor
• Call or write your government officials, University administrators
•
Become educated and educate others
39
Or in the words of Dr. Seuss
…
“… UNLESS someone like you cares a
whole awful lot, nothing is going to get
better. It’s not.”
-- The Lorax
Quick Time™a nd a
TIFF ( Unco mpre ssed ) dec ompr esso r
ar e nee ded to see this pictur e.
40