* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Cumulative carbon and its implications: the case for mandatory sequestration Myles Allen
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Emissions trading wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Climate-friendly gardening wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Carbon pricing in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Reforestation wikipedia , lookup
Decarbonisation measures in proposed UK electricity market reform wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Carbon emission trading wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Biosequestration wikipedia , lookup
Cumulative carbon and its implications: the case for mandatory sequestration Myles Allen School of Geography and the Environment/ECI & Department of Physics University of Oxford [email protected] A career in climate research… Matriculation A career in climate research… Awarded DPhil A career in climate research… IPCC Author A career in climate research… Lectureship A career in climate research… Chair What happens to the carbon we dump into the atmosphere? Understanding the carbon cycle A popular myth: – “About half the carbon we dump in the atmosphere is taken up by the oceans and biosphere, so if we reduce emissions by 50%, concentrations will stop rising.” Right? – Sadly, wrong. Additional CO2 is rapidly mixed between the atmosphere, near-surface oceans and biosphere, but concentrations are rising in all three “pools.” – Fraction removed by permanent carbon sinks is very small. How various greenhouse gases behave after emissions cease So fossil carbon accumulates in the climate system, and temperatures keep rising And most of the warming over the past 50 years is attributable to rising greenhouse gases Humaninduced warming And the solution is… Stock of cumulative CO2 emissions are the principal determinant of peak warming Which is not the topic of climate change negotiations What they obsess over Which is not the topic of climate change negotiations What actually matters Does this mean we can relax? The risk of dangerous climate change is principally driven by cumulative emissions of CO2. To limit warming to 2oC, we need to limit the total stock of carbon released to about 1TtC. Reducing the rate of flow doesn’t help unless it is a means of limiting the total stock. Emissions from fossil fuels and deforestation since 1750 are about 0.5TtC. On current trends, emissions reach 1TtC in 2040s. So, we’ve got 30 years to relax? Sadly, no: because CO2 accumulates, and can’t be switched off, delay actually does matter Impact of delay in reducing CO2 emissions Global emissions, fossil & land-use, (GtC/yr) 20 Committed CO2-induced warming at 2 oC/TtC 5.4oC 5.0oC 4.6oC 4.2oC 3.8oC 3.4oC Rate of decline after peak: 1.1%/yr 15 3.0oC 10 5 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year 2030 2040 2050 There is plenty of fossil carbon down there Conventional Conventional oiloil, and gas gas and coal change Past Conventional emissions, and fossil unconventional and land-use reserves With apologies to Charlton Heston Can we actually stop people from using fossil fuels? And do we have any right to anyway? The problem with the Kyoto/Copenhagen shortterm emission budget approach Emission rates in 2020 do not determine peak warming. Cheapest technologies for getting emissions down in the short term may crowd out measures required to limit cumulative emissions. Kyoto and Wallace’s Technotrousers: Prins & Rayner, 2008 Climate Mitigation with No New Taxes: SAFE carbon Sequestered Adequate Fraction of Extracted (SAFE) carbon: carbon from a supply that ensures we never exceed the atmospheric capacity. So, what is an “Adequate Fraction”? – S = net carbon sequestered / carbon extracted – In the very long term, S→100%. – At present, S=0%. Simplest option: specify S=C/C0: – C = Cumulative emissions from the time policy is adopted. – C0= Atmospheric capacity at the time policy is adopted. If all carbon sources were SAFE, we would never exceed the atmospheric capacity. Getting from A to B B A IWG Theatre Guild Why carbon taxes are not the answer: waiting for a high enough carbon price for CCS to be viable Suppose the fossil fuel industry decides to defend its share of world energy supply But paying for all that sequestration implies a carbon price, passed on to consumers So they might consume less, making the carbon price lower – but without compromising policy Comparing SAFE carbon with IEA BLUE Map scenario S=40% in 2050 under IEA BLUE Map scenario We could start with an optimistic (high) budget, and adjust when warming reaches 1.5oC. 20 20 1.0 c) Low consumption scenario b) High consumption scenario a) SAFE carbon pathways 15 0.6 0.4 1.2%/10GtC GtC per year 15 3.5%/10GtC GtC per year Sequestered fraction 0.8 10 10 5 5 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.0 0.8 Emissions to date (TtC) 1.4 0 2000 2020 2060 2040 Year 2080 2100 0 2000 2020 2060 2040 Year 2080 2100 Mandatory sequestration works Gorgon gas project, Western Australia Policy implications Simple climate policy goal: to achieve 100% net sequestration before we release the trillionth tonne. – Purpose is clear. – Progress is verifiable. Complex energy strategy response: – – – – Rapid and immediate large-scale development of CCS. Cost of carbon determined by cost of CCS, not by politics. Potential windfall for owners of large point sources of CO2. Prepare for rising cost of carbon by phasing out fossil subsidies, deploying renewables, nuclear, efficiency etc. One policy, one outcome, no new taxes. IT’S CUMULATIVE CARBON, STUPID