Climate Science and Policy

1. Climate Science and Policy Dr. Lisa R. Shaffer Assistant Director Scripps Institution of Oceanography March 2006

2. 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,…

4. The Greenhouse Effect Solar radiation Long-wave radiation

5. Global mean surface temperatures have increased

6. Temperatures of the land and oceans have mostly increased

8. Climate policy can mean many things • Science policy • Technology policy • Information policy • Energy policy • Economic policy • Foreign policy

9. 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

10. How did climate change arrive near the top of the international agenda? It started with objective scientific assessment. [Science Policy]

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Evolution of International Assessments 1995 IPCC Summary for Policymakers: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

15. 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

17. 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.”

18. 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 (human-induced) 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.”

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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”

22. 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.

23. 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, pro-development approach to addressing this important global challenge. -- State Department website http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/ -- emphasis added

25. CO2 emissions 2002 - top 20 RANK NATION CO2_TOT CO2_CAP 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1592382 5.52 2 CHINA (MAINLAND) 957249 0.74 3 RUSSIAN FEDERATION 390439 2.69 4 INDIA 332677 0.32 5 JAPAN 327939 2.57 6 GERMANY 219270 2.66 7 UNITED KINGDOM 148129 2.50 8 CANADA 140915 4.49 9 REPUBLIC OF KOREA 121578 2.55 10 ITALY (INCLUDING SAN MARINO) 117989 2.05 11 MEXICO 104543 1.01 12 FRANCE (INCLUDING MONACO) 100358 1.69 13 ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN 98153 1.50 14 AUSTRALIA 97096 4.94 15 SOUTH AFRICA 94110 2.07 16 SAUDI ARABIA 92794 4.22 17 BRAZIL 85492 0.49 18 UKRAINE 83599 1.73 19 INDONESIA 83513 0.39 20 SPAIN 82998 2.03

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. Some are listening

30. 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

31. California energy use and emissions Energy use per person Change in emissions 1990 - 1999

32. 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, co-creator of the Climate Group, a coalition of companies and governments set up to share such success stories.

33. 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]

34. 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!

35. 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

36. 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?

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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