Chatham house quiz

transcript

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?

What is the maximum annual reduction in carbon intensity i.e. the reduction in carbon emissions per unit of GDP?

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

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

University of ManchesterSept 2014

Kevin Anderson

web: kevinanderson.info twitter: @KevinClimate

The Ostrich or the Phoenix? ... cognitive dissonance or creativity in a changing climate

My headline conclusion:

Avoiding “dangerous climate change” (stabilisation at 2°C) remains a feasible goal of the international community

… with economic (oikonimia), but not financial (chrematisitc), benefits

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

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

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 science and on the basis of equity”

Copenhagen Accord, 2009

… 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)

Thinking about this ‘graphically’

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

0 … despite economic downturn, emissions continue to rise 5% in 2010; 2-3% p.a. since.

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

0 … so what of future emissions?

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

r-1) Energy system design lives (lock-in)

Power stations Large scale infrastructures Built environment Aircraft & ships

30-100 years

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

Extrapolation of 3.5%, 3, 2, 1% … (i.e. globalisation + unconventional fossil fuel

& late transition to low carbon energy)

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

Extrapolation of 3.5%, 3, 2, 1% … (i.e. globalisation + unconventional fossil fuel

& late transition to low carbon energy)

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

c.f. highest IPCC’s emission scenarios

RCP8.5 is 2% p.a. growth from 2020

(i.e. 1.5% below pre-recession rate)

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

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)

… but are such rising emissions realistic?

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

i.e. we’re set to emit …

between 2000 to 2050 >2500GtCO2

and for 2000 to 2100 ~5000+GtCO2

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

i.e. 4°C to 6°C by 2070-2100

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

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

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

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

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

and possibly as early as ~2022

So recent history supports the IEA view

… that the CO2 trend “is perfectly in line with a

temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius, which would have devastating consequences for the planet.”

Fatih Birol - IEA chief economist

… but what about 2°C?

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

4°C to 6°C

“likely” chance of 2°C

Optimistically using the higher of the IPCC’s budget range …

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

Too early for new

low carbonsupply &

demand

Reduce Demand

Supply

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

But this is a global analysis

& demand

Reduce Demand

Supply

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 20500

GCP new data

& demand

Reduce Demand

Supply

“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”

Assuming poorer (non-Annex 1) nations:

1. Collectively peak their emissions by 2025

2. Reduce thereafter at 6-8% p.a.

… 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% ~202490+% ~2030

i.e. RADICAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS

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

Machiavellian peaks (2010-2016, & before 2020 for China)

Emission reduction rate universally dictated by economists

Geoengineering is widespread in low carbon scenarios

Why aren’t scientists whistle-blowing these fudges

1. We are collectively applying Thomas Moore’s maxim"Qui tacet consentiret": 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 are ignorant 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

… what about a 4°C future? (i.e. a larger carbon budget and lower rates of mitigation)

If 2°C looks too difficult

What are potential 4°C impacts?

Global impacts: 4°C

Europe

+10-12°C

N. America

Hottest days

… add to heat-wave temps’

Sea level rise80cm rise,

higher in low

latitudes

Food crops… up to 40% reduction in

maize, wheat & rice yields in low latitudes.

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

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

Hypothesis: yes

Equity a small group to make radical & early reductions

Technology demand side can deliver early & large reductions

Growth there are alternative measures of a good life

… just

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%

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!

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

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

Welfare (health, life expectancy)

Employment/income

Equity

Literacy rates

Safety (low crime)

Growth makes the heterogeneous homogeneous in itself it has no meaningful value

Growth subsumes real social goods, including:

… low carbon energy supply can’t be built in time for 2°C, but…

Radical reductions in energy demand/emissions in a decade are possible

Extending the window for transitioning to low carbon energy supply

A Radical Plan for 2°C

A Radical Plan – 2 phases

1. Radical reductions in energy demand from now to ~2030

2. Marshall plan build programme of low-carbon energy supply

… with 100% penetration by 2030-40

We must escape the shackles of a twentieth century mind-set if we are ever to resolve twenty-first century challenges

This will demand leadership, courage, innovative thinking, engaged teams & difficult choices

Ultimately …

“at every level the greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the clarity and imagination to conceive that it could be different.”

Robert Unger

and a message of hope to finish …

Thank you

University of ManchesterSept 2014

Kevin Anderson

web: kevinanderson.info

twitter: @KevinClimate

Chatham house quiz

Documents