World Climate: Negotiating a Global Climate Agreement using the C-ROADS Climate Policy Simulation

1. World Climate:Negotiating a Global Climate Agreement using the C-ROADS Climate Policy Simulation

2. Agenda • Introduction and schedule • Roles • The World Climate Negotiation • Debrief and your feedback

3. Purpose of C-ROADS(Climate Rapid Overview And Decision Support) To improve understanding of important climate dynamics among Policymakers & negotiators Businesses, Educators, Civil Society Media The public to help ensure that climate policy is informed by vetted, peer-reviewed science.

4. Negotiating Parties • United States • European Union • Other Developed Nations Australia/NZ, Canada, Other Europe, Japan, Russia & Former Soviet Republics, South Korea, United Kingdom • China • India • Other Developing Nations Led by Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia, and Pakistan, with other nations of Africa, Central and South America, southeast Asia, the Middle East, island states of the Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Caribbean

5. Process • Introduce yourselves to members of your delegation • Read Briefing Memo for your nation or bloc • Begin to formulate your negotiating strategy • What are your vital interests? What is politically feasible in your nation/bloc? • What do you need from the other nations/blocs? What can you offer them?

6. Welcome DelegatesUN Climate Summit

7. Actual CO2 Emissions vs. IPCC Assumptions Emissions exceed IPCC Worst-case Scenario: 2010: 9.14GtC 9 Actual Emissions 8 IPCCWorstCase(A1FI) CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuels (GtC/year) 7 IPCC Emissions Scenarios 6 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 US Global Change Research Program: downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf 2008-2009 data: Manning et al. (2010), Nature Geoscience. Vol. 3; June, 376-377. 2010: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

8. Atmospheric CO2, Mauna Loa Observatory 2011: 392 ppm 40% above pre-industrial http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

9. 0 °C 1.0 °C 2.0 °C 3.0 °C 4.0 °C 5.0 °C 1.8 °F 3.6 °F 5.4 °F 7.2 °F 9.0 °F 0 °F IPCC AR4

10. 7.4 °C 13.3 °F 3.5 °C 6.3 ° F 5.3 °C 9.5 °F 0 °C 1.0 °C 2.0 °C 3.0 °C 4.0 °C 5.0 °C 6.0 °C 1.8 °F 3.6 °F 5.4 °F 7.2 °F 9.0 °F 0 °F 10.8 °F MIT Joint Program on Global Change (Sokolov et al. 2009, Journal of Climate) Projected mean temp increase by 2100 under BAU

11. Our Global Task Manage the Unavoidable and Avoid the Unmanageable

12. Your Goals • Achieve emissions reduction commitments to stabilize GHG levels by 2100 at a level that limits global warming to no more than 2 °C above preindustrial levels. • Agree on a deal to share costs of mitigation and adaptation fund to aid less developed nations.

16. Task 1: Emissions • Each delegation will set its own fossil fuel emissions targets.You will set: • In what year will GHG emissions in your bloc stop growing (if any)? • In what year (if desired), will your GHG emissions begin to fall? • If emissions will fall, at what rate (% per year)? • REDD policies: • Deforestation: 0 – 1 scale. 1 continues BAU deforestation path, 0 gradually eliminates deforestation over coming decades. • Afforestation: 0 – 1 scale. 0 = no new area set aside for afforestation; 1 = maximum feasible afforestation area.

17. Task 2: Burden Sharing • We are creating the “UN Global Fund for Mitigation and Adaptation” for • Disaster relief • Food and water • Immigration and refugees • Mitigation — Investing in any necessary non-cost-saving mitigation to achieve Task 1 goals • Total cost is $100 Billion per year (ramping up to that level by 2020) • How much will you contribute? • How much should others contribute? • Terms?

18. Proposal Form • Region: ____________ • CO2 Emissions growth stop year: _______ • CO2 Emissions decline start year: _______ • Fractional rate of decline (%/year): ______ • REDD+ (Reduction in Emissions from Deforestation and land Degradation)_______ India, Other Developed, Other Developing only:(1 = no reduction from BAU; 0 = max reduction) • Afforestation (net new forest area) _______ All nations/regions: (0 = no new afforestation area; 1 = maximum feasible) • Your region’s contribution to fund for mitigation and adaptation ($B/year): _______

19. After you prepare your proposal 2 minute plenary presentation by representative of each delegation describing their emissions proposal, their Fund commitment and why. Designate a representative to give your Bloc’s speech.

20. C-ROADS Model Structure User Input (Global, 3, 6 or 15 blocs) Other GHGs Total fossil fuel CO2 emissions Specific country emissions Climate Sea level rise, ocean pH Carbon cycle GHGs in atm Temp Net CO2 emissions from forests Deforestation Afforestation Forests User Input

21. Carbon Cycle • Atmosphere • Two biosphere compartments • Ocean: • Mixed layer • 10 deep ocean layers • Explicit stock/flow structure for other GHGs • CH4 • N2O • HFCs, PFCs, SF6, etc. • Aerosols & Black Carbon (10 layers)

22. Radiative Balance • CO2 • CH4 • N2O • Other GHGs • Aerosols • Black carbon • Heat transfer to surface, deep ocean Other Forcings (10 layers)

23. C-ROADS Produces CO2 Concentration Results Consistent with Historical Records

24. C-ROADS Produces Methane Concentration Results Consistent with History and IPCC Forecasts

25. C-ROADS Calibration to AR4 Scenarios

26. C-ROADS Produces Sea Level Rise Results Consistent with Historical Records

27. C-ROADS Scientific Review Panel • Dr. Robert Watson Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and former chair, IPCC • Mr. Eric Beinhocker McKinsey Global Institute • Dr. Klaus Hasselmann Max-Planck Institut für Meteorologie • Dr. David Lane London School of Economics • Dr. Jørgen Randers Norwegian School of Management (BI) • Dr. Stephen Schneider Stanford University • Dr. Bert de Vries Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, RIVM

28. Conclusion of Scientific Review Panel The C-ROADS model • “reproduces the response properties of state-of- the-art three dimensional climate models very well” • “Given the model’s capabilities and its close alignment with a range of scenarios published in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC we support its widespread use among a broad range of users and recommend that it be considered as an official United Nations tool.” Full report: http://climateinteractive.org/simulations/C-ROADS/technical/scientific-review/C-ROADS%20Scientific%20Review%20Summary-1.pdf

29. Proposal Summary

30. Debrief Round 1

31. Arctic Sea Ice Loss Compared to IPCC ModelsArctic ice extent to Sept. 2007 compared to IPCC models using the SRES A2 CO2 scenario (high CO2 scenario). Source: Dr. Asgeir Sorteberg, Bjeknes Centre for Climate Research, Svalbard, Norway http://www.carbonequity.info/images/seaice07.jpg

32. Policymaker Mental Models “Currently, in the UNFCCC negotiation process, the concrete environmental consequences of the various positions are not clear to all of us. There is a dangerous void of understanding of the short and long term impacts of the espoused …unwillingness to act on behalf of the Parties.” – Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC negotiator for Costa Rica, Sept 2008 (Named to lead UNFCCC, May 2010)

33. Head of State Meeting, Copenhagen, Dec 2009 “If there is no sense of mutuality in this process, it is going to be difficult for us to ever move forward in a significant way.” —President Barack Obama “I say this with all due respect and in all friendship….With all due respect to China…[The developed countries have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent.] And in return, China, which will soon be the biggest economic power in the world, says to the world: ‘Commitments apply to you, but not to us.’ This is utterly unacceptable! This is about the essentials, and one has to react to this hypocrisy!” —President Nikolas Sarkozy “Let us suppose 100 percent reduction, that is, no CO2 in the developed countries anymore. Even then, with the [target of] two degrees, you have to reduce carbon emissions in the developing countries. That is the truth.” — Chancellor Angela Merkel. “People tend to forget where it is from. In the past 200 years of industrialization developed countries contributed more than 80 percent of emissions. Whoever created this problem is responsible for the catastrophe we are facing.” — Chinese deputy foreign minister He Yafei “Thank you for all these suggestions. We have said very clearly that we must not accept the 50 percent reductions. We cannot accept it.” — He Yafei http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,692861,00.html

34. Round 2Debrief Round 2Round 3Overall Debrief

35. Thank you For more information: climateinteractive.org

36. Backup

37. C-ROADS Development Team(Climate Rapid Overview And Decision Support) Dr. Tom Fiddaman, Ventana Systems Dr. Travis Franck, Climate Interactive/MIT Sloan School Andrew Jones, Climate Interactive Dr. Phil Rice, Climate Interactive Dr. Beth Sawin, Climate Interactive Dr. Lori Siegel, Climate Interactive Dr. John Sterman, MIT System Dynamics Group

42. Impact of 1 Meter SLR

43. Impact of 1 Meter Sea Level Rise