1 / 55

Chatham house quiz

Chatham house quiz. If Paris delivers a genuine global commitment …. Is it realistic to reduce emissions in line with a “likely” chance of <2°C? What’s the earliest date non-Annex 1 nations could peak emissions? What’s the earliest date global emissions could peak?

shaeleigh-harper
Download Presentation

Chatham house quiz

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chatham house quiz

  2. If Paris delivers a genuine global commitment … • Is it realistic to reduce emissions in line with a “likely” chance of <2°C? • What’s the earliest date non-Annex 1 nations could peak emissions? • What’s the earliest date global emissions could peak? • What is the maximum annual reduction in carbon intensity • i.e. the reduction in carbon emissions per unit of GDP?

  3. Numerical context … • IPCC “likely” 2°C budget range is 630-1180GtCO2 for 2011-2100 • Emissions from 2011 to the end of 2014 will be ~144GtCO2 • Total CO2 from deforestation (with optimistic policy) ~ 130-200GtCO2 • Emission growth 2000-2012 was just over 3% p.a.including an economic slowdown only second to the Great Depression • Paris 2015 mitigation focus is on post 2020 at best • By end of 2020, remaining 2°C budget range will be ~100 to 600GtCO2 • That is ~ 2 to 12 years at 2020 emission levels

  4. … and with even weak equity criteria, the implications for Annex 1 nations will be much more challenging still

  5. The Ostrich or the Phoenix? ... cognitive dissonance or creativity in a changing climate web: kevinanderson.info twitter: @KevinClimate Kevin Anderson University of Manchester Sept 2014

  6. My headline conclusion: Avoiding “dangerous climate change” (stabilisation at 2°C) remains a feasible goal of the international community just … with economic (oikonimia), but not financial (chrematisitc), benefits

  7. Fredag in Stockholm: IPCC science report released • Offered neither surprise nor solace to our fossil-fuel hungry world • The science message for policy-makers, business leaders and civil society has changed very little during the last twenty years • Small adjustments and refinements have occurred • – but this is a mature science

  8. So what has changed? • An additional 200 billion tonnes of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since last report (AR4 2007) • Annual emissions ~65% higher than at time of the first report in 1990 • Atmospheric CO2 levels higher than during past 800 thousand years

  9. Yet we repeatedly recommit to: … make our fair contribution to… “To hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with scienceand on the basis of equity” Copenhagen Accord, 2009

  10. … to meet this objective, we need radical and immediate reductions in energy demand But surely… we can deliver 2°C mitigation through low-carbon energy supply? … in 2014, it’s all about timing! • reduction targets for 2050 dangerously misguide policy makers • temperature is about cumulative emissions / carbon budgets • for Annex 1 nations • there is insufficient carbon space for gas as a transition fuel • CCS emissions are too high (LCA levels of >80gCO2/kWh)

  11. Thinking about this ‘graphically’

  12. UN Climate change panel established

  13. UN Climate change panel established RIO Earth Summit

  14. Royal Commission (60% by 2050) UN Climate change panel established RIO Earth Summit

  15. Royal Commission (60% by 2050) UN Climate change panel established Copenhagen Accord RIO Earth Summit

  16. … despite economic downturn, emissionscontinue to rise 5% in 2010; 2-3% p.a. since. Royal Commission (60% by 2050) UN Climate change panel established Copenhagen Accord Rio + 20 RIO Earth Summit

  17. … so what of future emissions? Royal Commission (60% by 2050) UN Climate change panel established Copenhagen Accord Rio + 20 RIO Earth Summit

  18. Energy system design lives (lock-in) • Power stations • Large scale infrastructures • Built environment • Aircraft & ships 30-100 years

  19. Extrapolation of 3.5%, 3, 2, 1% … (i.e. globalisation + unconventional fossil fuel & late transition to low carbon energy)

  20. c.f. highest IPCC’s emission scenarios RCP8.5is 2% p.a. growth from 2020 (i.e. 1.5% below pre-recession rate)

  21. … but are such rising emissions realistic? • consider the UK (a leading nation on CC?) • Tax breaks for shale gas development • Chancellor proposes 30+ new gas powerstations • Highest investment ever in North Sea oil • Reopening of Scottish coal mines • Expanding aviation & more ports • Emission standards for cars watered down • Supporting Arctic exploration for hydrocarbons • Opened a consulate in Alberta (tar sands)

  22. i.e. we’re set to emit … between 2000 to 2050 >2500GtCO2 and for 2000 to 2100 ~5000+GtCO2

  23. i.e. 4°C to 6°C by 2070-2100

  24. Yet for a “likely” chance of <2°Cwe can emit only ~600 to 1200GtCO2 (AR5)

  25. i.e. no emissions after ~2030 at the latest

  26. and possibly as early as ~2022

  27. So recent history supports the IEA view … that the CO2trend “is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet.” FatihBirol - IEA chief economist

  28. … but what about 2°C?

  29. Optimistically using the higher of the IPCC’s budget range … 4°C to 6°C “likely” chance of 2°C

  30. Too early for new low carbon supply Reduce Demand Supply & demand

  31. Reduce Demand Supply & demand

  32. “To hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity” Reduce Demand Supply & demand

  33. Assuming poorer (non-Annex 1) nations: 1. Collectively peak their emissions by 2025 2. Reduce thereafter at 6-8% p.a.

  34. … then, for 2°C, wealthy (Annex 1) nations require: At least 10% reduction in emissions year on year, i.e. 40% reduction by ~2018 (c.f. 1990) 70% ~2024 90+% ~2030 i.e. RADICAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS

  35. Why does orthodox analysis give such different results? • Probability of exceeding 2°C is much higher (60-80%) • – i.e. bigger carbon budgets (~2x) • Inequitable apportionment of global emissions to Annex 1 • Machiavellianpeaks (2010-2016, & before 2020 for China) • Emission reduction rate universally dictated by economists • Geoengineeringis widespread in low carbon scenarios

  36. EU Why aren’t scientists whistle-blowing these fudges • We are collectively applying Thomas Moore’s maxim • "Qui tacetconsentiret": Silence gives consent • 2. We are culpable as a research community of a‘conspiracy of silence’,– we don’t agree with what’s going on but don’t want to bite the hand that feeds us • 3. We areignorant of some of the fundamental underpinnings for our research • 4. We don’t care – and anyway flagging up these concerns would likely raise difficult questions about our own lifestyles

  37. If 2°C looks too difficult … what about a 4°C future? • (i.e. a larger carbon budget and lower rates of mitigation)

  38. What are potential 4°C impacts?

  39. Global impacts: 4°C +8°C Europe Hottest days +6°C China +10-12°C N. America … add to heat-wave temps’

  40. Global impacts: 4°C Sea level rise 80cm rise, higher in low latitudes

  41. Global impacts: 4°C Food crops … up to 40% reduction in maize, wheat & rice yields in low latitudes.

  42. There is a widespread view that 4°C is… • Incompatible with an organised global community • Beyond ‘adaptation’ • Devastating to eco-systems • Unlikely to be stable (‘tipping points) … consequently … 4°C should be avoided at ‘all’ costs

  43. Returning to 2°C … is it still a viable goal?

  44. Hypothesis: yes … just Equity a small group to make radical & early reductions Technology demand side can deliver early & large reductions Growththere are alternative measures of a good life

  45. Equity: Pareto’s 80:20 rule 80% of something relates to … 20% of those involved ~80% of emissions from ~20% of population run this 3 times ~50% of emissions from ~1% of population Or more realistically: ~40% to 60% from ~1% to 5%

  46. who are the high-emitters? • Climate scientists • OECD (& other) academics (GPs … etc?) • Anyone who takes an annual flight or two … 2°C mitigation is principally a short-term challenge; i.e. really now to 2025 - so is mostly about the few not the many … it is a consumption and not a population issue!

  47. Technology • A++ rated fridge uses ~85% less energy than an A rated • Efficient IC cars 85-100gCO2/km; UK fleet 168gCO2/km (i.e. efficient petrol/diesel car uses 50% less fuel than the average) • Appliances typically have under 8 year replacement cycles

  48. Growth: a misguided proxy? • Stern, CCC & others: ‘Mitigation of over 4% p.a. incompatible with economic growth’ • but the economist’s economy has stalled! • self-regulated markets have failed to self regulate • £350 billion of QE has been squandered (c.f. retrofit) We have an unprecedented opportunity to think differently

  49. Growth subsumes real social goods, including: • Welfare (health, life expectancy) • Employment/income • Equity • Literacy rates • Safety (low crime) Growth makes the heterogeneous homogeneous in itself it has no meaningful value

More Related